Posted on 12/05/2019 6:42:32 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
On Wednesday, during Fox News Channel’s special coverage of the Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry hearings, Fox News legal commentators Andrew Napolitano and Andy McCarthy took a critical look at George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley’s argument against impeaching President Donald Trump.
Napolitano said, “Where I disagree with my dear friend, I’ve worked with him and testified alongside him, Jonathan Turley, on the significance of obstruction of justice, he is forgetting that the House has the sole, s-o-l-e power of impeachment. It does not need to go to a court for approval. It doesn’t need to get its subpoena enforced. When the president receives a subpoena, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo receive a subpoena, and they throw it in a drawer. They do not comply or challenge because the president told them to, that is the act of obstruction. Jonathan Turley has argued that the Congress needs to go to court and get an order to enforce the subpoena. And the failure to comply with that court subpoena is obstruction. That is a misreading of the obstruction statute
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
When was the last time Napolitano was right about anything.
Congress is designed to be the most powerful branch of government, and the Judiciary is designed to be the least powerful.
Congress can impeach and remove a President, for example. The President has no such authority over Congress.
Who?
Judge Nappy is confused. Turley never said the House has not the sole authority to begin impeachment.
What Turley actually said was the issue of Mulvaney & others testifying before congress should be resolved through the 3rd branch of government, the Judiciary. Because the judiciary has equal status under constitution along with congress and the Executive branch.
In other words what Turley meant is, the president ordering some people working in the executive branch is NOT obstructing congress unless the judiciary rules those people are required to testify and the president does not obey that ruling.
Makes lot of sense, because the congress can order the president anything and if he refuses, impeach him for obstruction? One of the function of the judiciary is to resolve and rule on differences between the other 2 branches of government.
“””””When was the last time Napolitano was right about anything.””””””””””””
Right before Fox sent him off to re-education camp.
Turley pointed out that Nixon resigned shortly after SCOTUS ruled against his claim of executive privilege, (I believe that was for the tape recordings of his calls and meetings). Turley also pointed out that by not using the courts as they were designed when a conflict occurs between branches, it further divides the country over impeachment. He also told the Democrats that by charging the President with obstruction for claiming his right to executive privilege without going to court over it, was an abuse of Congressional power.
Nappy and MCCarthy were obviously not the smartest men in the room by a long shot.
Napolitano was a superior court judge for the state of NJ. He’s no constitutional scholar.
1. Neither Napolitano nor McCarthy seem to know that it’s not until much later in our history, relatively recently in fact, that Congress started routinely issuing subpoenas at the president and accusing him of obstruction for refusing to comply.— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 5, 2019
2. From our earliest days, Congress and the Executive would negotiate matters related to witness and document production to avoid a constitutional clash. And in President Trump’s case, the nature and number of subpoenas, and the claims of obstruction, is unprecedented.— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 5, 2019
3. To say that the Democrats in the House have illimitable power under the Constitution to do so and that the president must comply with such demands despite his obligations under separation of powers and Article II has absolutely no historical support whatsoever.— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 5, 2019
4. Moreover, the danger of such a position is obvious. Madison himself feared the institution of the executive could be nurtured if limits were not placed on Congress. A Legislature, he believed, was just as capable of tyrannical behavior as an Executive.— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 5, 2019
5. Therefore, I challenge both gentlemen to point to their historical authority for their ultimate position that the House has illimitable subpoena power unchecked by either of the other two branches of government. https://t.co/xjqUXlb1pA— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 5, 2019
Napolitano missed Turley’s point completely. Nit Picked to get a headline.
Once again the mentally ill homosexual does understand law and shows his anti Trump politics.
Nah, he probably gets way more compensation at Fox.
Everybody has a price tag tied on them.... I wonder how much Nappy sold out for?
Eric holder got a subpoena from House committee. He did nothing if I recall, and nothing happened.
What is the difference?
Stick around and you’ll find the daily blog pimps reposting the same thing if you like that better. Either way this is not news, it is just one asshole’s opinion.
This happens often with GAYS... Napolitano is GAY!
In New Jersey, the Superior Court is simply the state court system. There's nothing "superior" about it in any way, shape or form. Andrew Napolitano was one of more than 350 judges who serve in the Superior Court system at any given time. He didn't even stay long enough to get lifetime tenure on the Superior Court bench. He resigned his seat after about seven years and left to do other things.
Since he didn't even retire as a judge, I believe the use of the term "Judge Napolitano" by Fox News is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
The guy is nothing more than a TV character.
I, like FNC, have chosen sides. FNC is my enemy.
What about this scenario? Someday in the future: A Congress fabricates false charges against a sitting president and votes to impeach. The Senate goes along and votes to remove. The president appeals to the SCOTUS which grants a stay in the impeachment verdict until the case can be heard en banc. A 5-4 decision is rendered in favor of the president with numerous violations of the Constitution cited.
Now what branch is boss?
If Congress can impeach for whatever reason it wants, then the SCOTUS, as we have seen in the past, can and has interpreted the Constitution in any way it wants.
Dear Democrats,
Trump has dozens of ways to get even without even trying.
Just ask Elijah Cummings.
I completely agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.