Posted on 02/02/2021 10:20:49 AM PST by Red Badger
2,567 views Trump War Room Profile picture Trump War Room Follow @TrumpWarRoom Twitter logo 30m, 14 tweets, 3 min read
I don’t hear that any more, it used to be more common.
How is he going to prove is case when the Courts refused to look at the evidence he produced?
Trouble is, there appears to be no rule of law anymore.
Surely the democrats see that this impeachment is utterly unconstitutional, irrational, and pointless, yet they are doing it anyway. Why? Because they can.
The law is what democrats say it is. The meaning of words is now lost. It doesn’t matter if something is against the law, they do it anyway and nothing happens.
They believe they have gotten away like bandits with the election steal so they probably believe they can get away with anything now. If they were concerned about legitimacy they would never have brought the first impeachment, let alone this fiasco. This is all CRAZIER THAN IDIOCRACY!!!!!
After reading this document it sounds like no one from Trumps side will even show up in the Senate. That IMO would be the best move. Roberts declined to participate. I think Trump changed attorneys just to file this document. I hope he ignores the whole thing. How can you have a trial if one of the partys does not show? Charge him with contempt? A private citizen? I don’t think so. Don’t even legitimize this farce.
Good question. What I’m hoping for is that President Trump will use whatever bully pulpit he has left in the United States Senate during his impeachment trial.
Not only can he deny the false allegations the House of Representatives has made in there impeachment charges, but he also will be able to bring forth each and every instance of illegal voter fraud.
But most likely, the Senate will shut down the hearings and refuse to hear him. They’ll take their vote, declare him guilty, and proceed with their little kangaroo court.
Who determines this? If SCOTUS than Congress could say that is our "Impeachment power" and tell SCOTUS to take a hike. Sounds ridiculous but when a massive power grab is underway any excuse or justification can be made especially with a press under your command.
And it is suitable for so many occasions.
You can’t impeach a guy who’s out, DemonRats. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. So if you see a strong opposing candidate coming in an election year, you just manufacture a charge and impeach him then? Yeah, that’s what America is about.
The framers warned about out of control cabals/factions within the legislature and that is why the court HAS TO address the issue. They are co-equal branches and what this amounts to is a rogue legislature.
As the Court stated, the Constitution explicitly gives sole authority over impeachment to the Congress. Thus, the courts have no authority to review the congressional action in an impeachment proceeding. The Supreme Court can and has refused to consider reviewing an impeachment process and thoroughly explained why the Judicial Branch had no authority to review impeachments. Below are some excerpts.
(Judge) Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
At 228:
A controversy is nonjusticiable—i. e., involves a political question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . .” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962).
At 229:
In this case, we must examine Art. I, §3, cl. 6, to determine the scope of authority conferred upon the Senate by the Framers regarding impeachment. It provides:“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.The language and structure of this Clause are revealing. The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate, and the word “sole” indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.
Petitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word “sole” in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that “[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” We think that the word “sole” is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word “sole” appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment.” Art. I, §2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The commonsense meaning of the word “sole” is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. “Sole” is defined as “having no companion,” “solitary,” “being the only one,” and “functioning ... independently and without assistance or interference.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body “tried” an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.”
At 233:
The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. See 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 424, 938 F. 2d, at 243; R. Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 116 (1973). This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature’s power with respect to bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and statutes. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 524 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (“Limitations ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice”).
At 234:
There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:“Would it be proper that the persons, who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?” The Federalist No. 65, p. 442 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).Certainly judicial review of the Senate’s “trial” would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.
Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers’ insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial accountability, Hamilton wrote:
“The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.” Id., No. 79, at 532-533 (emphasis added).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. See id., No. 81, at 545. Nixon’s argument would place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.
At 236:
In addition to the textual commitment argument, we are persuaded that the lack of finality and the difficulty of fashioning relief counsel against justiciability. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 210. We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would “expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.” 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 427, 938 F. 2d, at 246. This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated. Equally uncertain is the question of what relief a court may give other than simply setting aside the judgment of conviction. Could it order the reinstatement of a convicted federal judge, or order Congress to create an additional judgeship if the seat had been filled in the interim?
When will BIDEN’s impeachment process start for fueling BLM’s riots with attacks , destructions of USA symbols and history ?
Hey RINOS !
True. The law is whatever the Marxists say it is.
No choice? What is going to make him? You?
I believe that if they try to censure him and use the 14th Amendment Trump’s attorney’s will file a violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause. They seem to be warning the Senate throughout that they will go that route. The Senate has no judicial authority in this case because Trump is no longer President, so any action would be a violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause. I do not think the Senate will want to risk being slapped down in Federal Court for acting outside the law. They may want to risk it, since they could win in court, but they will make Trump into a martyr and keep him front and center in the news everyday for the next couple of years.
This means that in 2023, we could see a Biden Impeachment out of the House. The RATS under Pelosi lowered the bar for Impeachments so low that Biden's activities in the Ukraine will be enough to send him to trial in the Senate. What has to worry the RATS is that we may take the Senate back as well. They could be facing the real possibility he will be removed from office.
HELL will be MUCH HOTTER than a THOUSAND SUNS!........................
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.