Newsnews

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 08:48 PM

Giuliani Speaks Out: Supreme Court Should Rule Impeachment Unconstitutional

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/giuliani-speaks-out-supreme-court-should-rule-impeachment-unconstitutional-112766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Constitution does give the House broad discretion in impeachments, there are limits. The most explicit of these is that impeachment can only be for, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Art. II, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution) However, the articles for impeachment voted on by this entirely partisan Democratic Congress, which are currently being unconstitutionally withheld from the Senate, charge no such offenses. In fact, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes of any kind, high or low. Therein lies the real reason why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Giuliani is right
8 (67%)
Giuliani is wrong
4 (33%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

13 replies, 218 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Giuliani Speaks Out: Supreme Court Should Rule Impeachment Unconstitutional (Original post)
Da Mannn Jan 12 OP
Butchie_T Jan 12 #1
RetiredCop3061 Jan 13 #10
Butchie_T Jan 13 #11
jh4freedom Jan 12 #2
Nostrings Jan 12 #3
jh4freedom Jan 12 #5
Nostrings Jan 12 #6
rampartb Jan 12 #7
Nostrings Jan 13 #8
jh4freedom Jan 12 #4
Cynical Jan 13 #9
Isidore Jan 13 #12
Solesurvivor Jan 13 #13

Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 09:00 PM

1. Sorry but the supreme court has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter.

This event is strictly political and not judicial. The SCOTUS can do nothing but watch in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Butchie_T (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:07 PM

10. Thanks for your opinion, Butchie..... even if it is wrong

Long before posting such nonsense as "the supreme court has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter", you really should educate yourself on the duties and functions of those nine sitting justices.

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself."

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Those justices certainly do have the right to examine the "evidence" which has (or, in this case, has not) been presented to justify a finding that the President is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors".....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetiredCop3061 (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:24 PM

11. Wow so you are fucked up

The judicial branch can rule on matters of law and whether congress overstepped their bounds in legislative matters. They cannot rule or over rule on political issues. So thanks for your bullshit post though.

The Supreme Court will have absolutely no say in the matters of Impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 09:10 PM

2. While I personally would love stringing impeachment out

till it reaches the Supreme Court. It would be a futile effort. Chief Justice Roberts, as trial judge for impeachment most likely would recuse himself from hearing any challenge. That would mean a 4-4 ruling would be probable and the impeachment trial would go on.
Also, there's judicial precedent: "Judicial Review of Impeachments"
"SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.” Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review."--https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/56-judicial-review-of-impeachments.html

In short, based on previous rulings, the Supreme Court is likely to refuse to hear any appeal because the Constitution explicitly gives the power to try all impeachments to the Senate. By a simple majority though, the Senate could decide on its own NOT to hold a trial. That's up to Mitch McConnell and the boys and girls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Nostrings (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 09:38 PM

5. That would NEVER happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 10:23 PM

6. I think you'd be in for a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 11:29 PM

7. ridiculous

if that were enough to get a judge to recuse any criminal defendant could send dumb tweet.

despite trump's announcement that tweets are "official notifications" I think the case for recusal would depend on whether the judge actually was aware of the tweet and took it seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 12:04 AM

8. Way to miss the point rampart.

"if that were enough to get a judge to recuse any criminal defendant could send dumb tweet."

Trumps weets have nothing to do with it, mister clueless.

Ginsburgs statements previously made about the President are the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Sun Jan 12, 2020, 09:37 PM

4. The Law of the Land

18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 87–664, § 6(a), Sept. 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 551; Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 903, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 94–435, title I, § 105, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1389; Pub. L. 97–291, § 4(d), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1253; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

There is no difference in the law between Contempt of Congress and Obstruction of Congress.
Contempt of Congress
Contempt of Congress or obstruction of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 08:17 AM

9. While the impeachment is partisan BS it is still legal

since there is no specific definition of what constitutes "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Original post)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:38 PM

12. "What's a high crime?"

"What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly. But I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. Doesn't even have to be a crime.

"It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you have committed a high crime.

"When you decide that a course of conduct meets the high crimes standard, under our Constitution, by the president, what are we doing to the presidency?"

– Lindsey Graham

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Isidore (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 03:27 PM

13. Who was hurt even if Trump did what the loony left said he did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews