[The Pack Knight]

I think the bottom line is that the issue has been controversial and the subject of legal debate, and the debate isn’t likely to be resolved by this process. As we’ve both said, Trump is unlikely to be convicted, so there is little likelihood of any courts considering the matter (even if it is justiciable).

A word about Senate precedent: I would contend that the Senate’s past acts do not form any sort of binding precedent because, even though they are acting in a judicial capacity, they don’t issue opinions setting forth their reasoning as an appellate court does.

[woodpusher]

Trump is unlikely to be convicted, so there is little likelihood of any courts considering the matter (even if it is justiciable).

It is definitely not justiciable.

The classic work on impeachment is Impeachment, A Handbook, by Charles L. Black, Jr. In chapter 4, he considered an impeachment thoroughly examined in the House, and a trial thoroughly argued in the Senate, resulting in conviction. He goes on, (emphasis as in original):

The president now appeals to the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of that Court over the appeal is to say the least quite unclear, but it takes jurisdiction anyway. On the merits, the Court disagrees with the House and with the Senate on some point, let us say, as to the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” or on some procedural question of weight (perhaps dividing 5 to 4, perhaps filing nine opinions no five of which espouse the same reasoning). So it puts the impeached and convicted president back in for the rest of his term. And we all live happily ever after.

I don’t think I possess the resources of rhetoric adequate to characterizing the absurdity of that position.

- - - - - - - - - -

A word about Senate precedent: I would contend that the Senate’s past acts do not form any sort of binding precedent because, even though they are acting in a judicial capacity, they don’t issue opinions setting forth their reasoning as an appellate court does.

It is definitely not a binding precedent. The Senate has no binding precedents, but then neither does the Supreme Court. Judicial precedents only bind courts lower than the issuing court. However, as impeachment after leaving office has been has been done before, this senate could do it again. As there is no judicial appeal, they can pretty much do as they please.