Ignorant Trump thinks he can run to the Sup Crt for protection on impeachment

[ProudModerate2]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1121023509029892096

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1121025624632647682



-----------------------------------

President Donald Trump said he’d ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene if Congress mounts an impeachment effort against him -- even though there are no legal grounds for the justices to consider such a request.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/trump-says-he-d-seek-supreme-court-help-to-deter-impeachment

[TML]

He would be laughed out of the court by the 1993 decision Nixon v. United States.

[Dereich]

Even if they had the authority to consider it, no justice (even Thomas) would touch that with a 50 foot pole. That issue would be the very definition of an nonjusticiable political question.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Even if they had the authority to consider it, no justice (even Thomas) would touch that with a 50 foot pole. That issue would be the very definition of an unjusticiable political question.

Lol not thinking that Thomas and the other rw hacks aren’t going to side with Trump is really being optimistic 

[Progressive Pessimist]

Well, that was one of the reasons why he appointed Kavanaugh after all.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He would be laughed out of the court by the 1993 decision Nixon v. United States.

https://apnews.com/3ea406469d344dd8b2527aed92da6365

"But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so. Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently...Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision,” Kavanaugh said in a transcript of the discussion that was published in the January-February 1999 issue of the Washington Lawyer.

At another point in the discussion, Kavanaugh said the court might have been wise to stay out of the tapes dispute. “Should U.S. v. Nixon be overruled on the ground that the case was a nonjusticiable intrabranch dispute? Maybe so,” he said.

You can see here the same sort of tortured logic at work in certain defenses of Trump:

1) You can't indict the President, because he's the President, and Congress is supposed to impeach him if he does wrong.

2) Since the President hasn't been indicited, there's no evidence he did anything wrong.

3) Without some sort of indictment, there is no basis for a Congressional investigation (that might, you know, produce more evidence of impeachment-worthy conduct).

It's all a hollowing-out of Congress' power of impeachment.

It doesn't take much imagination to see very serious Republicans explaining to each other on Fox News how while Trump may have been impeached, Congress doesn't actually have the  power to strip the President of his popularly elected office and that impeachment is really more of a sort of expression of disapproval.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

He probably can.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Roberts is non partisan and the only role he takes is to rule on evidence if there is a trial

[T'Chenka]

He can go the Supreme Court all he wants. He has NO authority over them. His little cheeto suckers Gorsuch and Kavanaugh might be willing to kneel to a cheeto god, but he would need 3 more Justices to cripple the Senate and Congress and crush democracy.

[Xing]

Totally sounds like a guy who did nothing wrong.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Totally sounds like a guy who did nothing wrong.

TOTALLY EXONERATED! NO COLLUSION!

[Slander and/or Libel]

Roberts is non partisan and the only role he takes is to rule on evidence if there is a trial

I don't think you intended this to be hilarious but it's hilarious.

[SteveRogers]

To be clear, there is absolutely no mechanism by which the Supreme Court could Halle an ongoing congressional proceeding. If the House levels impeachment charges, the Court would have no power to quash the charges or to keep the Senate from voting on conviction. Now, if the Senate did vote to remove Trump from office, could the hacks on the Court declare after the fact that the conviction was invalid? Sure. It would require ignoring a century or more of precedent on the political questions doctrine, but they could do it if they were really determined. That would of course lead to an instant constitutional crisis since a new president would have already taken office. Maybe I’m being naive, but I doubt there’s 5 votes on the Court to go that route. Maybe 2 or 3, but not 5.

Roberts would potentially have an easy out. Since the Chief Justice would be the one to preside over the impeachment, he would be expected to recuse himself from any challenge to the impeachment proceedings.

[ProudModerate2]

... Now, if the Senate did vote to remove Trump from office, could the hacks on the Court declare after the fact that the conviction was invalid? Sure. It would require ignoring a century or more of precedent on the political questions doctrine, but they could do it if they were really determined.

But could they?
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
It says nothing about allowing the Supreme Court any say during or after the impeachment/trial (other than the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate/trial.)

[SteveRogers]

... Now, if the Senate did vote to remove Trump from office, could the hacks on the Court declare after the fact that the conviction was invalid? Sure. It would require ignoring a century or more of precedent on the political questions doctrine, but they could do it if they were really determined.

But could they?
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
It says nothing about allowing the Supreme Court any say during or after the impeachment/trial (other than the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate/trial.)

Oh, I mostly* agree with you. Most scholars generally agree that the Constitution does not contemplate judicial review of inpeachments. Thus the Constitutional crisis if the Court were to assert such a power. Who ultimately decides whether the Court has such a power?

*While congress alone has the power to determine what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors,” I do think the court could intervene if Congress manifestly failed to comply with the proper Constitutional procedures (i.e. to determine whether or not the required two thirds of senators had actually been present and voting,etc.).

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trump might be right on this.  If he is, I will say that it's another case of his being right without knowing that he's right.

I don't think he's right on this, but much of what he's talking about is ground not yet trod.