2018 Senate (& House)

They will definitely push for it. It'll be considered traitorous in most Democratic primary elections not to. It'll be the equivalent of a Republican voting for Obamacare. Whether or not it's successful in the House will depend on the size of the majority and the merit of the charges. If it's a solid case, then I think even a narrow Democratic majority will be enough to impeach and may even attract a few Republicans. If it's "we're impeaching him because a witness testified that he cheered for Ivan Drago in Rocky IV, and that obviously means he colluded with the Russians," then they're going to need a 40+ seat pickup to impeach. No Republicans will go along, and they'll lose some defectors in blue collar white areas. (For example, I don't think a guy like Connor Lamb would go along.)

Obviously true.

If the Senate stays in GOP hands, it'll probably reject the charges without a trial, which would keep him from being a factor. However, if they take them up, I don't see how Roberts avoids being a part of it. Presiding over impeachment trials is one of his constitutional duties. I do recall from the Clinton impeachment trial, that the Chief Justice is only there to maintain order and enforce procedural rules. He's not there to decide substantive questions of law. I remember Harkin brought that up, but Rehnquist ruled that he was correct.

 

I dont think even Roberts would go along with a show trial. Being a "poopy head" is not sufficient Constitutional grounds for impeachment, no matter what House Dems say or think or do. Roberts does not want anything to do with this and so, I think, he will find some permissible, indirect way of communicating to the leaders in private the Court wont let it stand even if they push it through. He's a smart guy, he can figure it out.

ps - Plus, I would argue, he already owes us one.

 

Another thing is how all of this reaffirms the idea that Dems cannot win anything on their own. Their ideas and policies do not move the majority. When they are honest about their true thoughts, they lose.

So they attack in every other way imaginable. They attack through their control of news networks and newspapers. They attack through the courts. They attack through the bureaucracy (look at how Pruitt scares them). They attack through musicians, television, comedians, film and cable entertainment. They attack through flooding the country with illegal aliens. They attack the Constitution itself. Now, perhaps through impeachment. They dont realize it but this is a concession on their part. They are admitting they are not capable of simply playing within the rules of the democratic process, going before the voters and convincing the voters that they have the better ideas, better arguments and better programs. They cant win without some form of cheating. It's always something.

 

Kanye is totally woke
Nothing scares Dems more than the idea they might lose the black vote. This scares them more than the idea that we might actually stop illegal immigration. If Dems dont get 90%+ of the black vote, they are toast.

 

That's ridiculous on multiple levels. First, it's not up to him to decide what is and isn't constitutionally sufficient grounds to remove a president. That is solely within Congress' authority through the impeachment and trial processes. Second, the merits of an impeachment trial have no bearing on the Chief Justice's duty to preside. Frankly, if he refused to preside, it would give cause to impeach him. Third, it wouldn't be doing us or anybody else a favor to refuse to preside or otherwise interfere and set off some big constitutional battle. The outcome would be the same. We'd be far better off if he presided and then the GOP (plus Joe Manchin and maybe Heidi Heitkamp) defeated the charges by voting to acquit.

 

Kanye has "black privilege" on this. White liberals are beneath him in the intersectionality hierarchy, so he can tell them to screw off and call them racists if they tell him he's not allowed to think for himself. As a white, non-Muslim woman who's hot, Shania Twain isn't very high on the hierarchy, so she doesn't have that luxury. That's why she had to self-flagellate.

 

That's ridiculous on one primary overriding level
The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all Constitutional questions
For the instant purposes, this means the House does not get to decide the meaning of a line of text in the Constitution
Why?
Again, because it lacks the Constitutional authority to do so

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

 

Why do foreigners always want to share their foreign thoughts on our local politics with us?

 

They would almost surely invoke the political question doctrine. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). It doesn't deal specifically with the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but its rationale in not interfering with Judge Nixon's Senate trial would apply to pretty much any action taken by the Senate when removing a federal officer. It's also a separation of powers problem. If the judiciary assumed the power to review impeachments, Congress would lose its only major check on the judiciary. Would the Court intervene if the Senate tried to remove somebody with less than a 2/3 majority? Yes. Would it jump in and quibble over what is and isn't a high crime or misdemeanor? No.

 

That doesn't bother me that much, and I have no room to complain. I comment on British and German politics all the time. If I can complain about Chancellor Merkel, they can complain about Trump.

 

This exactly...Special Elections are like a Constitutional ballot issue here. You might see 5-7% who show up, if that many, of the registered voters (which as we all know, is FAR from the number of persons ELIGIBLE to have registered).

Without a good reason to go to the poll, many won't. Especially a single-issue ballot...

 

OK, so let us work our way through an example
Let's say Mueller returns from his Odyssey with bupkis, as he seems destined to do. Yet Dems, who had already won a 1-vote majority in the House and push forward anyway, led by Holy Chief Inquisitor Maxine Waters
Let us also assume that they do impeach by one-vote, and return the following charges --
(1) Trump had sex with a porn star 12 years ago
(2) Several witnesses overheard Trump join in a toast saying "nostrovia!" while downing some vodka, which was believed to be Russian but not proven on the floor of the House, and
(3) Trump was shown to be worth only $1B, not $2B as claimed

If you are John Roberts sitting there watching this, do you let these charges go to the Senate?

Do the FREs apply here? (maybe this should be one of the negotiated points?)
If so, one of the House Rs would (hopefully) moves for a DV, or make a Rule 50 motion (or Rule 29 if its crim rules) (I would). I think Roberts would take it under advisement. Wait a few weeks. Then write 25 hard-to-understand pages why he granted the Rule 50 motion, saving the Senate from the spectacle.

 

In this instance, the issue would not be the outcome but rather the House's interpretation of the Constitution. Which, in the view of the SCOTUS, is itself an infringement on the judicial branch under the Separations of Power Clause.

 

In the land of crazy hypotheticals, this one is king.

If that was the limit of the "charges" then the House would not vote to impeach. No rational person would put their name on a vote with those charges. I get it...Democrats are "irrational" yada yada but that's simply a partisan viewpoint, an irrational one at that.

 

Realistically, they probably won't go with just having sex with the porn star. They'll go with some alleged nefarious dealings involving Cohen. And with the Russian stuff, they'll look at the meetings Trump's people had with Russian officials and jump to a bunch of conclusions. However, it doesn't matter. We can go with your set of impeachment articles. They would be good enough for the Left.

Where does he have the power to stop them? If the House passes the impeachment articles, they go to the Senate. There is no stop with the Chief Justice.

The Senate could adopt its own rules of evidence. However, I think the Chief Justice would have the authority to make rulings on evidentiary matters whether they adopt their own or use the Federal Rules of Evidence. He would not have the authority to grant a motion for directed verdict or a judgment as a matter of law. That authority would belong to the Senators, who have the "sole power to try all impeachments." Unlike jurors, they are not simply triers of fact. They are triers of fact and law. They get to decide whether the President committed the alleged acts AND whether or not the acts are wrongful or grounds for removal.

This is where the political question doctrine comes into play. The Court has ruled that it's not always going to resolve every constitutional question. When the Constitution by its specific text commits an issue to a particular branch (such as impeachment), it's not going to intervene.

 

The House and Senate get to make up their own rules for this, as they have previously done. What they do not get to do is interpret the text of the Constitution.

 

They can if the Court deems the issue to be a political question, because the issue won't be in front of the Court. The political question doctrine works like a justiciability issue (like standing, ripeness, mootness, etc.). If they decide something is political question, they will never reach the merits. So yes, the Congress will get to decide what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

 

I look forward to John Roberts banging his gavel on your little toe

 

In all likelihood, that would end Roberts' judicial career.

Roberts tries not to be a troublemaker. If he did what you're suggesting, he'd be unilaterally (meaning without the Court) overturning Supreme Court precedent and making himself the ultimate authority on impeachment, and it would unquestionably be the most rogue act by a federal judge in 240 years. If he wasn't willing to overturn the individual mandate, he's not going to try that. Trump would be more likely to sneak into a federal reserve bank, steal $25 billion in cash and start building the wall by himself than Roberts would be to do what you're suggesting.

In short, that sphincter of yours is acting up again. lol

 

However, a liberal judge is trying to win that distinction. Link.

 

We have reached this point many time in the past in here, where you make a prediction about the future that does not come to pass. Had we been able to wager them all, you might be in debtors prison by now. But the thing most remarkable about it all, from my perspective (other than your weird obsession with my body parts) is that you seem very interested in the SCOTUS and federal courts yet were willing to hand it all over to Hillary, who would have destroyed the very thing you hold precious. It makes zero sense to me. Can you imagine if we had Justice Lani Guinier or Justice Sheila Jackson-Lee now instead of Justice Neil Gorsuch?

 

You could also just be an adult and admit that you forgot about the political question doctrine rather than trying to change the subject.

 

I still do not believe Roberts would allow a vote to proceed on the findings I set out. Or anything close to them. I so want to offer you a friendly bet but until we see what they come up with, it's impossible. What if they dont take the House? What if a Dem House member or two escapes from the cult?

Which brings up a question I was wondering on the bike ride today. Which is more cultlike?
(a) Hillary-voters,
(b) aggy,
(c) Scientologists,
(d) CNN on-air personalities, or
(e) North Koreans
I concede there might be some overlap

 

You forgot r//the_donald members, like yourself.

 

I find MSM cultists to be the worst. MSM convinces people that illegal immigrants are a benefit to a society, that there are more than two genders, and Trump is somehow an idiot despite being extremely successful in life.

 

Translation: People who listen to facts are the worst.

Are you sure it wasn't Soros that funded and convinced everyone of those boogeymen you're pointing at?

I'm not saying everything printed in the MSM is accurate. Accuracy is relative though, relative to the partisan blogs.

 

The MSM deal with facts? If you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell ya. They are as partisan as any blog. Btw, if you believe in any of the examples that I stated in my previous post then you're a meathead. They are also prime examples on how the MSM can brainwash people into believing stuff that 20 years ago we all would have laughed knowing it was crazy ********.

 

Try and not laugh