[Ken Regis]

It is my opinion that the impeachment is unconstitutional for two reasons: First, No crime is named in the Articles that rises to the standard ("Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" A.II, S. 4) and second, the House majority, using its "rules" did not properly permit the ENTIRE House to participate in the process - as specified by the composition of the "House of Representatives" (A. I, S. 2 and S. 3).

Question:
Is it possible that the SCOTUS could step in and declare that the impeachment is void because it was not accomplished according to the Law?

[inchworm]

Mitch should tell her to shove them up her arse.

[CodeToad]

“Is it possible that the SCOTUS could step in and declare that the impeachment is void because it was not accomplished according to the Law?”

I think so since the Chief Justice presides on the Senate trial. As a judge, could he not proclaim there are no charges stated for which an impeachment can be held?

Since Queen Nancy hasn’t forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the articles have no meaning, there is no Senate trial, and there is no Chief Justice presiding. The House took a vote.

Interestingly, if the Republicans take back the House next year and the articles are not forwarded, there can still be another vote to abolish the previous vote and the articles voided from the record.