Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

And my pain meds are kicking in, so maybe it wasn't just my keyboard -- I shall now try to revert to less intense discussions.

And I just noticed you deleted your response - thanks for that, Sam -- I'll try again when I'm.....

Thanks

Hey, feel better and let those fellas do their good work.

--Sam

[seer]

Can't rely on executive privilege in an impeachment proceeding.

Nope that is not a given, from your link:

The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17(c) had been satisfied.

They have to meet certain conditions.

[Sam]

Nope that is not a given, from your link:

The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17(c) had been satisfied.

They have to meet certain conditions.

Which will be done, rather easily. Material being pursuant to an impeachment proceeding, like material pursuant to a criminal trial, rebuts the presumption of privilege and Rule 17(c) ain't gonna help you.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Source: Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

© Copyright Original Source

It would be absurd to interpret that ruling as saying that the Legislature can flout the law without the fear of judicial intervention just because it's running an impeachment inquiry; and by law, the power of subpoena requires the authorization of the relevant chamber, in this case the House which typically makes these decisions by vote, so the White House is well within its right to take the matter to the court regarding these phony "subpoenas" the House keeps sending out.

[Teallaura]

Source: Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

© Copyright Original Source

Judicial review ISN'T IN the Constitution!!!!

Nor does it read like it was creating a loophole for unjust trials to allow political coups.

Truth is, it's uncharted territory - but I wouldn't count on a hyper-literalist reading by any member or the Court.

[Teallaura]

It would be absurd to interpret that ruling as saying that the Legislature can flout the law without the fear of judicial intervention just because it's running an impeachment inquiry; and by law, the power of subpoena requires the authorization of the relevant chamber, in this case the House which typically makes these decisions by vote, so the White House is well within its right to take the matter to the court regarding these phony "subpoenas" the House keeps sending out.

Worse than that, White's concurrence left the door open.

[Teallaura]

For reference:

Source: Findlaw

The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue.

Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

Worse than that, White's concurrence left the door open.

Not very wide, since White differentiates in his concurrence between impeachment trials and criminal trials, noting that the framers did not want the judiciary to be involved in both.

So the questions that are on the table here, primarily dealing in Trump's "constitutional 6A rights" would not, under White's reasoning, tilt toward Trump.

--Sam

[Sam]

Souter's hypothetical was if the House impeaches and the Senate, without trial, voted to convict on the basis of the President "being a bad guy".

Humorously, that finds its closest parallel to conservative pundits today urging McConnell to forgo a trial in case of impeachment and immediately vote to acquit Trump.

--Sam

For reference:

Source: Findlaw

The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue.

Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Teallaura]

Not very wide, since White differentiates in his concurrence between impeachment trials and criminal trials, noting that the framers did not want the judiciary to be involved in both.

So the questions that are on the table here, primarily dealing in Trump's "constitutional 6A rights" would not, under White's reasoning, tilt toward Trump.

--Sam

No, he's left a plenty wide door - besides the non-binding nature of Nixon.

It's uncharted territory - and we have no idea what the Court will consider re: House precedings.

And being President doesn't strip you of your Constitutional rights.

You do realize both White and Souter addressed the Senate, right? You're arguing the Dems have no recourse if they believe the Senate has acquitted unjustly. The Senate is unlikely to convict - might test the 'we don't have to if we don't wanna' theory, but I doubt it.