Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: crz; Madam Theophilus
Incorrect. Once this is OVER, and whatever the outcome, Trump can take it up since it is a constitutional issue.

How does one overcome the unanimous Supreme court in (Judge) 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.”

149 posted on 02/02/2021 3:38:22 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]


To: woodpusher

“would eviscerate the ‘important constitutional check’ placed on the Judiciary by the Framers.”

Say what? 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. If not slapped back into place, then we have no republic. Not that we have one left at this moment.


155 posted on 02/02/2021 4:06:27 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson