Too bad the President could not have engaged competent attorneys on November 4, 2020, or even before to prevent the mail-in ballot farce - but these guys have done a masterful job, and even structured something which I did not think possible - grounds for an appeal using the bill of attainder clause.
Nicely done, Messrs. Castor and Schoen.
Is this Schoen related to Doug Schoen?
grounds for an appeal using the bill of attainder clause.
It is a well written response, however, it appears there is no place to take an appeal regarding an alleged bill of attainder. In Belknap, the Senate found jurisdiction after the individual had left office. In Trump, the Senate again found it constitutional to proceed with a trial after Trump had left office. The courts do not sit in review of impeachment convictions in the Senate.
Something could be attempted in court, but how does one overcome Nixon, 506 U.S. 224, 234, 235 (1993)? (234) “There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments.” (235) “Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the ‘important constitutional check’ placed on the Judiciary by the Framers.”
There were several here who pinned the impeachment as a bill of attainder early on in this process. Once again, FR leads the way.
CC