Keep the Supreme Court out of this.
_________________________________________
The Supremes are and always will be the final arbiter between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. That’s where the Pelosi subpoena contest was headed, until Pelosi said there was no time. If POTUS does not have standing when he is the one being prosecuted, no one would. It’s never weak to avail yourself of legal process when your cause is just just as with the subpoenas. Actually, going to the Court has the likelihood of producing the perfect result for Trump. The Court is likely to rule the impeachment articles are invalid, nullifying the impeachment.
The Court is likely to rule the impeachment articles are invalid, nullifying the impeachment.
I don't know what evidence you have to support this. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the Court is treading on very dangerous ground if it makes a ruling that comes anywhere close to this.
Let's consider this in the context of a completely different angle. If the U.S. Supreme Court can rule that a House impeachment is invalid, then what prevents the Court from ruling that a Senate ACQUITTAL in this case is invalid?
You see the danger here? Of all the branches of the Federal government, it's the judicial branch that is most likely to operate in a rogue manner with no oversight. The best way to avoid this kind of disastrous scenario is to keep cases out of the judicial branch that have no business being there.
The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the NLRB v. Noel Canning case is very relevant here. In that case, a company targeted for enforcement action by the National Labor Relations Board fought the case on the grounds that most of the NLRB board members were appointed illegally by Barack Obama as "recess appointments" even though the Senate was not actually in recess when they were appointed.
Several items worth noting here:
1. The Supreme Court ruled against the NLRB by stating that the President has the authority to make recess appointments, but the Senate was the sole arbiter to determine when exactly it was in recess. The President has no authority over the Senate, and has no business telling the Senate what constitutes a legitimate "recess" for the purpose of presidential appointments.
2. There were two different opinions drafted by the Supreme Court justices, but there was no dissent. This was a 9-0 ruling, with the majority opinion supported by the four liberal justices and one "swing" justice at the time (Anthony Kennedy). The four conservative justices concurred with the ruling, but issued a separate opinion that disagreed with one particular application of the majority opinion under the Constitution.
3. The U.S. Senate didn't file a legal challenge to the Obama appointments. The Senate determined (correctly, in my mind) that the best course of action was to simply ignore the illegal Obama appointments and act as if those NLRB appointees had no legal right to rule on anything.
4. The opportunity for a solid legal challenge arose when the NLRB with its illegal appointees issued a ruling against a company that could legitimately claim that is was being harmed by the rogue NLRB. At this point the company (Noel Canning) had the proper legal standing to challenge the legitimacy of the NLRB.
-----------
Now fast-forward to 2019 and early 2020. There is nothing in the House's idiotic "impeachment" that prevents anyone in the U.S. government from doing its job. If the President of the United States somehow feels constrained by the sham impeachment, then that's really HIS problem.