Please, Van, give us all a lesson on Constitutional law and Senate rules and procedures. We are dying to hear your expert voice.
So the House has impeached President tRump
- Thread starter Cream&Crimson
- Start date
The principle of finality is as important here as in all other kinds of governmental proceedings. The senate is well within its constitutional authority to establish a time within which the articles must be presented to the senate. If the time isn’t net, the articles are null and finished. Pelosi can’t hold this open indefinitely. The house would have to start over with a new cause for impeachment.
This is essentially what Van argues in a non-legal way.
And goat, you are in over your head yet again.
From what I've read there is no timeline defined on when the articles have to be delivered. If that's true then the how long is "indefinitely". And if we think of "the articles of impeachment" as charges (which they are), you can't dismiss them until they've been filed.
Effectively she's holding Sword of Damocles over t-rump.
If I'm wrong I'm sure someone in the know will correct me me
Pelosi should hold the articles for the same amount of time the Garland nomination was held.
When it comes to impeachment, both the House and the Senate have sole, unreviewable authority to define their own rules. This means the House can hold on to the Articles and present them to the Senate whenever they damn well please.
Last edited:
Thanks Goat.
I was saying what seemed to be logical married to the information I was able to dig up. And I responded a couple of times without saying "YOU DUMBASS!!!" once. That's a lot of personal growth on my end.
I don't think there's really any advantage or grand strategy to Pelosi holding them up, but I appreciate her pwning McConnell and Trump by hinting about doing it.
Maybe she should hold on to them until the election, and if Trump is reelected she can send them over then. Not that it would make a practical difference, but it would probably be the most epic troll in history, evah.
I don't think she'll hold them very long. I think she's just scoring some points against Mitch in the public. She's probably well aware that public interest in impeachment is just now starting to expand beyond the nerds and partisans, and she wants to get the first punch in.
The deeper strategy by Pelosi is that the Dems are happy to have the whole thing stop now. It is clear the President isn't going to be removed and so the articles of impeachment stand only as a protest by the house...a kind of super censure that is modestly satisfying to their base. Pelosi has the advantage unless the GOP prefers to have a real trial.
That makes no sense. If you are correct then the Senate can decide to not hold the trial until after Trump’s second term or whenever it damn well pleases. I think you are being silly.
stollcpa said:
I don't know about you, but my experience is that only the ignorant people would say things with absolute confidence.
In theory, the Senate could do just that (they'd have to change their own standing rules, of course, and I really doubt Mitch could get 51 votes for such a change). Nixon v. U.S. was pretty clear that the courts have absolutely no role to play in interpreting what it means to "try" an impeachment.
It must be admitted, however, that White and Souter made some compelling arguments in their concurrences that the majority was wrong on this point (Souter famously suggested that if the Senate sought to convict or acquit on account of a coin toss, that might be so outside the bounds of the body's Constitutional duty as to allow judicial review), so I guess we won't know for sure unless and until they try.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the post that I was replying to was except to suggest that it would be something unusual for him to be found not guilty which I pointed out isn't. We all know it's politics being played by both sides.
Yep and I was pointing out that it was inevitable when Clinton was impeached...... it's was all politics in Clinton's case (even it if was proven that he lied) and it's all politics now. What a waste of taxpayer's money when there are so many other places the money could be used and so many other problems to solve.
I think the authority to issue orders in the nature of mandamus is inherent to the judicial branch of government. This is not judicial review and it isn't interpretation of congressional authority. It's simply ordering that another branch of government undertake the duties assigned to it.
Maybe you'll listen to your peers... *eyeroll*
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
What is the point in ordering the Senate to perform an act if SCOTUS has already ruled that the Senate gets to define said act? Either way, they'd have to overturn Nixon, and that would require interpretation and a revisiting of the political question doctrine.
And you seem to imply (and so did tooold) that it's not politics... way to go bro.
I don’t think mandamus is that complicated. SCOTUS can order the senate to hold a trial w/o defining trial procedures.
And according to Nixon, the Senate can do whatever the f*ck they want, and then send a note to SCOTUS that says, "Okay, we did it."
They aren't his peers. They've obviously taken the opportunity to weigh the evidence before them with some measure of objectivity.
Neither would Souter or White (or me, for that matter), but they still have to overturn precedent to get where you think they should be.
Just to be semi clear, the only way it's not politics is if Mitch would allow for witnesses to determine the truth and quit with the obstruction or whitewashing if you prefer.
From what I've read, Pelosi needs a House vote to appoint impeachment managers to carry the case to the Senate. She makes a good point in wondering what kind of show Mitch is going to orchestrate in the Senate, knowing the answer to that she could better decide between the fat man or the bearded lady to send to the sideshow. Then there is the practical matter of who in the world would want to enter the clown show and try to remain professional.
Don’t agree for reasons I said several posts ago. And I’ll add SCOTUS didn’t discuss or decide mandamus.
No, but they decided the Senate gets to define what "try" means. You can't just sidestep the issue. Mandamus doesn't mean shit if SCOTUS doesn't also reserve the right to overturn the Senate's definition of "try."
How about constitutional scholar Jonathon Turley?
Hint-you won’t like what he has to say.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/19/let-them-impeach-and-be-damned-history-repeats-itself-with-a-vengeance-as-the-house-impeaches-donald-trump/
That has nothing to do with anything VPM or I were talking about. But good effort, I guess.
