HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trump says he would chall...

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:12 AM

Trump says he would challenge impeachment in Supreme Court

Source: The Hill

President Trump on Wednesday said that he would attempt to challenge impeachment in the Supreme Court if Democrats carried out such proceedings, though it's unclear the high court would hear such a case.

"The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG," Trump tweeted.

"If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all," he continued.

The president accused Democrats, Hillary Clinton and "dirty cops" of being guilty of criminal activity.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/440358-trump-says-he-would-challenge-impeachment-in-supreme-court

119 replies, 5963 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 119 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump says he would challenge impeachment in Supreme Court (Original post)
demmiblue Apr 24 OP
2naSalit Apr 24 #1
Iliyah Apr 24 #2
Rene Apr 24 #38
Stuart G Apr 24 #94
BootinUp Apr 24 #3
in2herbs Apr 24 #4
orangecrush Apr 24 #8
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #55
mitch96 Apr 24 #91
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #95
melm00se Apr 24 #110
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #113
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #71
gldstwmn Apr 24 #88
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #98
gldstwmn Apr 24 #100
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #109
NurseJackie Apr 24 #5
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 24 #12
Lucky Luciano Apr 24 #32
Botany Apr 24 #6
elleng Apr 24 #89
Botany Apr 24 #99
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #114
elleng Apr 24 #115
sinkingfeeling Apr 24 #7
lagomorph777 Apr 24 #9
Iliyah Apr 24 #15
Scoopster Apr 24 #37
paleotn Apr 24 #43
Scoopster Apr 24 #76
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #56
paleotn Apr 24 #42
abqtommy Apr 24 #10
Tom Rinaldo Apr 24 #11
cstanleytech Apr 24 #13
PJMcK Apr 24 #31
Fiendish Thingy Apr 24 #33
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #60
gldstwmn Apr 24 #90
Delmette2.0 Apr 24 #36
Volaris Apr 24 #64
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #69
Volaris Apr 24 #72
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #73
Volaris Apr 24 #77
Delmette2.0 Apr 24 #81
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #83
Volaris Apr 24 #87
melm00se Apr 24 #14
Marcuse Apr 24 #25
PRETZEL Apr 24 #30
paleotn Apr 24 #44
machoneman Apr 24 #66
qazplm135 Apr 24 #84
MarvinGardens Apr 24 #45
melm00se Apr 24 #75
onenote Apr 24 #93
Bleacher Creature Apr 24 #16
Scarsdale Apr 24 #17
47of74 Apr 24 #50
exboyfil Apr 24 #18
Farmer-Rick Apr 24 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #70
Farmer-Rick Apr 24 #96
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #97
SKKY Apr 24 #20
lagomorph777 Apr 24 #54
padah513 Apr 24 #57
tymorial Apr 24 #21
Yavin4 Apr 24 #35
Itchinjim Apr 24 #22
SunSeeker Apr 24 #23
gademocrat7 Apr 24 #24
The Wizard Apr 24 #26
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #74
The Wizard Apr 24 #118
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #119
C_U_L8R Apr 24 #27
barbtries Apr 24 #28
Freethinker65 Apr 24 #29
Purrfessor Apr 24 #34
TryLogic Apr 24 #39
marylandblue Apr 24 #40
HuskyOffset Apr 24 #41
yaesu Apr 24 #46
Nitram Apr 24 #47
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #61
onenote Apr 24 #92
Nitram Apr 24 #102
Nitram Apr 24 #101
LineReply .
struggle4progress Apr 24 #48
Nitram Apr 24 #49
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #67
George II Apr 24 #51
Hong Kong Cavalier Apr 24 #52
Eliot Rosewater Apr 24 #53
kimbutgar Apr 24 #58
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #62
kimbutgar Apr 24 #63
mahatmakanejeeves Apr 24 #79
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #85
ET Awful Apr 24 #59
jmowreader Apr 24 #65
Nevermypresident Apr 24 #68
calimary Apr 24 #78
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 24 #116
PSPS Apr 24 #80
LibDemAlways Apr 24 #82
gldstwmn Apr 24 #86
PoliticAverse Apr 24 #103
Thomas Hurt Apr 24 #104
sprinkleeninow Apr 24 #105
Raven123 Apr 24 #106
truthisfreedom Apr 24 #107
Talitha Apr 24 #108
montanacowboy Apr 24 #111
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 24 #112
Honeycombe8 Apr 24 #117

Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:15 AM

1. Hoo boy...

Gonna be a rough day for somebody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:18 AM

2. This will not fair well . . .

It would allow future presidents to be as corrupt and even more so without any consequences. McTurtle is a prime example of corruption and allowing any senate leader to do much worst, tho McTurle is really really bad.

They should remember, although I don't think these Republicans have any souls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:39 AM

38. both drumpf and mcturtle are pond scum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rene (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:31 PM

94. The "PSAA" begs to differ with you..that is the Pond Scum Association of America..

While it is true, that pond scum is not the cleanest or the best..we of the association do believe that pond scum is a whole lot cleaner than President Trump and McConnell. Scum as it is dissected, has only a certain amount of infections and dirt. The amount is limited by the ability to live and grow in water..

....President Trump and McConnell have unlimited dirt and infections. When you combine the two, Trump and McConnell (mctrutle), the amount and infectious abilty of their scum is beyond reason or ability to count and keep track of...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:19 AM

3. Keep digging that hole dumbass. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:19 AM

4. IMO this is why we must being impeachment proceedings ASAP. By getting the USSC on record with

their impeachment decisions, if decided in favor of tRump, I believe the American people would finally recognize the threat to the US by the conservative judges on the USSC and vote for Dems in droves in 2020, allowing the dems to expand the court with more liberal judges. It is the only way our country will survive the plague on our voting rights, abortion rights, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:22 AM

8. Good points all.


Time is critical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:22 AM

55. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings.

The only decision they ever made about impeachment was that they didn't have jurisdiction. That was a Rehnquist opinion from 1993, and this court won't ignore a Rehnquist opinion; he was as right-wing as any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:24 PM

91. "federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment "

I did not know that.. I though him saying he will fight in court was him thinking a conservative court would do his bidding.. Hummmm
m

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mitch96 (Reply #91)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:33 PM

95. That was because he has no idea how any of this works.

And he doesn't listen to whichever pathetic lawyers still work for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:45 PM

110. The particular case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #110)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:27 PM

113. Yes, it was about a judge, Walter Nixon (and not *the* Nixon, which was US v. Nixon),

who had been impeached and was trying to seek a remedy in the courts. The Supremes, by right-wing hack Rehnquist, said that the court couldn't hear the case because it involved a political question that was entirely the province of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #4)


Response to in2herbs (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:46 PM

88. They could refuse the case. They don't have to take it.

Trump would completely lose his shit. It sure would be fun to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:09 PM

98. They couldn't take it, they don't have jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #98)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:19 PM

100. That's what we said right before they decided an election.

That said I do not think Roberts cares for Trump at all and wouldn't entertain this nonsense for a second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gldstwmn (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:37 PM

109. It's in the Constitution in black and white.

A court full of originalists won’t be able to ignore that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:21 AM

5. He sounds nervous... and frightened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:27 AM

12. Yup. A tell. Not a case of "Don't throw me into the briar patch". He's desperate to avoid impeachmen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:24 AM

32. Maybe...or maybe he feeds off of the controversy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:21 AM

6. Is somebody gonna tell him that is not how things work?

Impeachment happens in the House and then a conviction and removal vote is in the Senate.


His guilt is eating him alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:56 PM

89. and the trial in the senate is PRESIDED OVER by the Chief Justice!!!

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #89)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:10 PM

99. thanx I forgot about that fact

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #89)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:35 PM

114. Not exactly. The CJ is the "presiding officer" but he doesn't act as a trial judge.

It's only in impeachment cases involving a president or VP where the chief justice acts as the presiding officer, who in other impeachment cases would be the president of the Senate - that is, the VP. The reason it was decided that the VP can't be the presiding officer in a presidential impeachment trial is that he would have a vested interest in the outcome (that is, if the president gets impeached the VP gets his job). But the presiding officer isn't intended to act as a real judge but as more of a referee whose job is to keep the process running smoothly, and not to rule on substantive issues. When Rehnquist presided over the Clinton impeachment trial he did almost nothing - mostly he decided when they could take breaks. And even though Rehnquist was a highly partisan GOPer, Clinton was acquitted. Rehnquist did not interfere in any way, and I would not expect Roberts (who is much less of a hack than Rehnquist was, in case anybody's forgotten about that guy) to interfere, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #114)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:36 PM

115. Right, thought about changing my wording; will do so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:22 AM

7. Really? On what grounds? That Congress is a lesser branch of government

than the other two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:22 AM

9. That's hilarious. The Constitution does not allow SCOTUS to weigh in.

Sorry, Agent Orange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:32 AM

15. Good to know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:38 AM

37. Actually it does, in a way.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sits in the presiding chair as the representation of the Judicial Branch during a Senate impeachment trial, in the place of the VP or Senate pro-tempore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scoopster (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:02 AM

43. But the actual vote is by sitting Senators

Roberts would preside, but has no impact on the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:04 PM

76. Yeah I get that.

I think Roberts would at the very least keep things under control, since we know if it even got to that point McConnell & the rest of his cronies would be doing their best to disrupt the proceedings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scoopster (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:23 AM

56. But they don't control the outcome. CJ Rehnquist presided over the trial that acquitted Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:00 AM

42. Bingo!

The ass has no idea how our government works. This is strictly a constitutional issue and the constitution makes no provision for SCOTUS to weigh in. They’re not part of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:23 AM

10. Isn't that cute how tRump will use the law and the courts to

defend his corruption! "Ain't that America!"/John Mellencamp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:25 AM

11. This constitutes another impeachable offense. The man is incapable of upholding the Constitution.

Ignorance of the Constitution is no defense when you are President of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:30 AM

13. Unless I am mistaken SCOTUS has zero say in any impeachment of an official by Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:24 AM

31. A minor point

If the House impeaches the president and the Senate holds a trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge in the Senate trial. Oddly, I think John Roberts would be a better judge in such a case than Rhenquist was during President Clinton's Senate trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:33 AM

33. Chief Justice does not serve as a "judge", he "presides" over the trial

In this case Roberts would literally make sure "Robert's" rules of order were followed, but he doesn't have any role in "sentencing" or even around admissibility of evidence, I think...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:32 AM

60. As far as I can tell from reading the Senate's rules on impeachment trials,

and from what I recall from the Clinton trial, they don't strictly follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, a right-wing partisan if there ever was one (much worse than Roberts), presided over that trial and Clinton was acquitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:00 PM

90. Roberts certainly has been a pleasant surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:37 AM

36. I didn't know that.

I think Roberts would do the right thing and defend the Constitution and the rule of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delmette2.0 (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:39 AM

64. In this case ya.

As in, 'ohplease ohplease ohplease OH PLEASE put this lunacy to John Roberts supreme court'-it would be 9-0 and it would be a halirious slap down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:53 AM

69. The only involvement Roberts would have in an impeachment trial

would be to "preside," which means he would decide only technical procedural matters. They don't adhere strictly to the rules of evidence in those trials, so he wouldn't be much involved even in that. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, right winger Rehnquist presided over the Clinton impeachment trial and Clinton was acquitted anyhow. There is no appeal to any federal court from an impeachment conviction because the federal court system has no jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:57 AM

72. no, no, I mean in reference to Trump wanting to sue the Congress for impeaching him.

Roberts would have a damn field day writing that opinion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #72)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:58 AM

73. LOL, you have to hand it to him for creativity.

I'm glad I'm not his lawyer, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:05 PM

77. RIGHT??? But really whats his argument gonna be?

Trump: '"Your Honors, Congress is trying to Impeach me as a political excercise."
SC: "Ummmm...ya. Thanks for coming in, were glad everyones on the same page."
Trump: "Soooo, that means I don't have to get impeached?"
SC: "HAHAHAHAHAH--No, and get the fuck out of our courtroom before WE cite you for contempt."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #77)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:20 PM

81. Spot on. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #77)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:34 PM

83. LOL.

"Yes, Mr. President. Political exercises are exactly what Congress does. That's why we don't get involved. Now, don't you have a tee time this afternoon?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:46 PM

87. '..dont you have a tee time this afternoon?'

Trump: "Well, NOT ANYMORE." (as hes dragged back to the well of the House to testify).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:31 AM

14. Impeachment

Ok folks, lets go to the document from which the power of impeachment is derived:

Article I, Section 2 clause 5:
"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Article I, section 3, clause 6

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

Note the word "sole". This has always been assumed to mean that impeachment proceedings are outside the scope of judicial review.

This assumption was challenged in Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon but the judge). In its ruling 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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:10 AM

25. Expect McConnell to try to block an impeachment trial as he did the Garland hearing.

Why wouldn’t he? Ethics? Truth? Justice? The American Way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcuse (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:23 AM

30. McConnell would have no choice in the matter

the Impeachment Trial in the Senate is overseen by the Chief Justice.

The Senators only render the verdict on the case presented by the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PRETZEL (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:09 AM

44. Exactly

And the judgment of sitting Rethuglicans will depend on the charges, the evidence and more importantly the politics at hand. I do not begin to predict how that will turn out. Only that a politician’s first directive is to get re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PRETZEL (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:44 AM

66. Yes, finally for once McConnell can only act as a senator, not the head of the Senate.

He's poweless to stop the House sending the Articles over for a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PRETZEL (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:38 PM

84. sure he could

the Trial is overseen by the Chief Justice AFTER the Senate actually initiates the process...until that moment, there's nothing for him to oversee.

Yes, the Senate rules say it starts at 1pm the following day now, but McConnell will either:

a. change the rules
b. ignore the rules, for at least some period of time. He will couch it as saying this is unprecedented, blah blah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcuse (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:09 AM

45. I'm not sure he can.

The Constitution specifies that the Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcuse (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:02 PM

75. Once a Bill of Impeachment passes

the trial, as I understand it, is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcuse (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:31 PM

93. The difference is that nothing in the Constitution or Senate rules required a vote on Garland

But the Constitution contemplates a trial by the Senate to resolve an impeachment by the House and the Senate rules specifically require that trial process to commence upon the House's presentation of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:34 AM

16. I love that he doesn't know how impeachment works.

He clearly has no clue that the Chief Justice would preside over his trial in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:35 AM

17. The security and safety

of future elections HAS to be a priority. The voting machines are owned by Russian companies!! Time to get a more secure election procedure in place. We have been damaged already, this corrupt arse has done more than enough damage to the WH and the Constitution. It should be stopped ASAP. Any gop member who protects him needs to be voted OUT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scarsdale (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:19 AM

50. And make both electoral fraud and voter suppression capital offenses

And our government should publicly execute anyone involved. Both are as bad as treason and it’s past time for our government to put its foot down through the for over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:35 AM

18. If Bill Clinton had said this

Even the Democrats would have voted against him. This lack of understanding of the Constitution is disqualifying in of itself for being the President (or any other elected office).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:38 AM

19. Considering that the Supremes are involved in Impeachment of a president

That would be like appealing to the supremes about their own decision.

The chief justice of the United States would presides over the impeachment of Trump in the Senate. So, I doubt the Chief Justice would allow an appeal of his own court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:56 AM

70. No, they are not involved. The federal courts have no jurisdiction over the impeachment process.

The Chief Justice acts only as the "presiding officer" in an impeachment trial, and as such deals only with technical procedural matters and does not decide substantive issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #70)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:04 PM

96. To me that IS involvement

And it would block appeals to the Supremes based on technical procedural matters. That only leaves appeals based on other issues.

It still would look ridiculous to see the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate over Trump's Impeachment then see the Supremes take it up for appeal. It would be a ridiculous show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:08 PM

97. It won't happen. Rehnquist was a worse partisan hack than Roberts

and he did virtually nothing during the Clinton impeachment trial except decide when to take breaks. And Clinton was acquitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:43 AM

20. I honestly can't see Roberts buying into this...

...He's a Conservative, for sure, but I also think he cares more about his and the court's legacy than perhaps most people realize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SKKY (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:21 AM

54. It doesn't matter - SCOTUS is not permitted to weigh in.

Other than Roberts himself "presiding" over the Senate trial. But Idon't think he can block the whole trial, nor will scoundrels such as Kavanaugh and Gorsuck have any say whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:24 AM

57. That is so good to know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:45 AM

21. Could you imagine the supreme court having to respond to this?

Asking the court to weigh on the constitutionality of the constitution lol.

"Mr President, perhaps you ought to read the document you swore to defend"

seems appropriate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tymorial (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:37 AM

35. Yeah, it's the Constitution, not an iTunes TOS n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:51 AM

22. Fucking moron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:54 AM

23. What innocent person says stuff like "they didn't lay a glove on me"?

Mueller most certainly did describe crimes committed by Trump, as is evident to everyone who has read the Mueller report. That is why Barr had to lie about what it said. The reason Trump is not in jail for it, as the report notes, is because DOJ policy precludes prosecuting a sitting President. Indeed, as the report notes, the policy precludes even a sealed indictment that would await the end of Trump's term. That is why Mueller REPEATEDLY said in his report that it is Congress' duty to impeach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:58 AM

24. What a buffoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:13 AM

26. The Repubics have been stacking the Court with partisan hacks

Thanks Miss McConnell for corrupting the Senate to advance fascism. The Repubic fall back position is to go to the Mediocre (formerly Supreme) Court packed with unqualified partisans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:59 AM

74. Doesn't matter in this case; the Supremes can't be involved in impeachment trials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:17 PM

118. The Supreme Court can make up the rules as they like

They could come up with a convoluted legal theory that recognizes Trump as the Unitary Executive who is above all laws and thus rendering impeachment as quaint and not suited for today's needs. Remember, as long as Trump is in power laws only apply to his enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #118)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:30 PM

119. No, they can't. The Constitution expressly says that impeachment

is solely the responsibility of Congress (Article I, section 2). It says the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." And in 1993 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist - who was actually much more of a partisan hack than Roberts, in case you don't remember him - held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment procedures for that reason, and specifically because impeachment is a political question which the courts can't involve themselves in. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224. They can't change the rules (the Senate's rules for impeachment trials are here, https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf ) if they don't have jurisdiction to even look at the rules. Don't forget, the conservatives on the Supreme Court are constitutional originalists who are not likely to ignore the plain language of the Constitution itself, or an opinion of arch-conservative Rehnquist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:18 AM

27. Spoken like a cartoon criminal

"Hey coppers, you didn't lay a glove on me."


Hold my beer....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:22 AM

28. what the hell.

how long will this go on?? will i die and he's still president?!
this shit is wearing me DOWN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:22 AM

29. Let the House investigate. If Trump continues to obstruct, impeach to get the information

Then the GOP Senate gets to decide if they want to destroy the entire US government to protect Trump. If they decide to protect Trump above the country and constitution, disband Congress, as it no longer has any role to play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:34 AM

34. First head to the Supreme Court? What would his second...

third, fourth and fifth attempts to block impeachment entail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:40 AM

39. That is the uninformed nonsense of an arrogant, uneducated fool who...

has gotten away with way too many crimes and bully tactics in his life. There are numerous things he needs to learn about consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:47 AM

40. I'm against impeachment, but he will convince me to do it and it will happen.

Still, I want to give him enough rope to hang himself. He's giving the House no choice but to impeach him. I think they will when the vast majority of independent voters want it. That time is not far off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:59 AM

41. "...didn't lay a glove on me."

Correct, as Robert Mueller & team were not wearing gloves, because they wanted to deliver the rawest, bitch-slappingest of legal bitch slaps directly to your stupid orange face. Which they did, if you had the wit to read and understand the report they wrote, even with the redactions. If you remove the orange coating from your face and look in the mirror, you'll see a red hand print.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:10 AM

46. He feels emboldened, untouchable, fits right into his mental illness

megalomania, sociopath & a lifetime criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:12 AM

47. Of course he would. He packed the court with conservatives. But I doubt Roberts would support

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

him if the case against him is was strong as I think it will be. Alito and Clarence the Wordless will support Trump to the end. the others, I'm not so sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:34 AM

61. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Right-wing extremist Justice Rehnquist said so back in 1993. A person who is convicted following impeachment can't appeal to any federal court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 01:29 PM

92. Nor can he resort to the courts to block the House from considering articles of impeachment

Nixon v. US case involved an attempt by a federal judge who had been impeached by the House to challenge the conduct of the trial in the Senate. It failed because the Constitution clearly states that the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments.

While that case arose after the House had impeached, the same reasoning applies with respect to the consideration of articles of impeachment by the House. The Constitution also states that "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #92)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:26 PM

102. Thanks for reminding me of that, one note.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #61)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:25 PM

101. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I guess the best way Trump can use the Supreme Court at this stage is to try to block subpoenas of his staff and White House material before a vote for impeachment occurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:14 AM

48. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:18 AM

49. That's a non-starter. Even most of the conservatives on the Supreme Court believe in

the Constitution. Roberts doesn't want to leave a legacy like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:45 AM

67. Roberts won't have to leave a legacy like that because the federal courts don't have jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was much more right-wing than Roberts (a fact most people seem to have forgotten), made that point in a 1993 case, Nixon v. U.S. (not that Nixon, a judge, Walter Nixon, who was impeached by the Senate). He said the courts couldn't review an impeachment conviction because the Senate has the sole authority and it's strictly a political question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:19 AM

51. On what basis, dotard? The Founding Fathers were "fake news"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:19 AM

52. This is STILL not normal.

Don't assume that the Republicans are going to follow the rules in the Constitution just because they're there.

Don't assume that John Roberts is going to follow the rules in the Constitution just because they're there.

We have an Attorney General who has sworn allegiance to his boss, rather than the people he's supposed to serve.

We have a Senate that simply will not do their job because the man in charge has far too much power in that body and has decided that they're going to look the other way.

We are on the edge of the abyss, and Paul Krugman is right. We're close to becoming a republic in name only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:21 AM

53. He will encourage his idiots to start shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:25 AM

58. Funny how he think he now also controls the supreme court and they'll ignore the rule of law

Does he know something we don’t?

Is the supreme court already corrupted by Russia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #58)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:35 AM

62. The federal court system doesn't have jurisdiction in impeachment trials.

There's nothing for the Supreme Court to ignore - they won't, and can't, get involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:37 AM

63. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:14 PM

79. What are the CJ's duties in presiding over an impeachment trial? Thanks. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #79)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:41 PM

85. He doesn't act as a judge, as such. He is the "presiding officer" of the Senate

for cases involving presidents and vice presidents; otherwise the presiding officer would be the vice president because he is also the president of the Senate. So it isn't a judicial job. He makes only technical or procedural decisions necessary to keep the proceedings in order and leaves substantive matters to the Senators. Don't forget that CJ Rehnquist, who was much more of a partisan hack than Roberts, presided over Clinton's impeachment trial and Clinton was acquitted. IIRC Rehnquist didn't do much besides sit there and occasionally decide when to take breaks. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-chief-justice-rehnquist-goes-with-senate-flow-wiser-but.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:27 AM

59. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

The Constitution spells out specifically who has control over impeachment and how the process works.

The House of Representatives has the "SOLE Power of Impeachment" (emphasis mine) and the Senate shall have "the Sole Power to try all Impeachments".

The USSC has no say in the matter and no jurisdiction over the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:40 AM

65. The truth would hit Trump in the head like a 2x6 made of cast iron

Let’s see...the courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment, impeachment isn’t even appealable in the courts, the Mueller Report would have recommended a nice one-inch Manila rope if it weren’t against policy to indict a sitting president...and this tweet makes it painfully obvious Trump is more guilty than any man in the history of the Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:49 AM

68. Try it Conman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:08 PM

78. Mueller report didn't lay a glove on him?

All that obstruction fully investigated and laid out in detail with sworn witnesses and plenty of backup?

‘Zat the “glove” he’s talking about?

Sheesh - anybody who’s still willing to believe him after his TENS OF THOUSANDS of lies just since the campaign, is a certified fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #78)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 05:05 PM

116. Hobnailed boots, maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:19 PM

80. Anything that begins with "trump says" can be ignored

And I think the proper vernacular here is, "I dint do nuttin."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:29 PM

82. Pretty clear he slept during Government class

in high school. He has no clue about the roles and responsibilities of the 3 branches of government. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to forcefully and definitively school him. Hope the Republican lackeys on the court realize the overreach here, but not holding out much hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 12:43 PM

86. I don't think you want to do that Donnie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:26 PM

103. Nixon v. United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:27 PM

104. Not even the christofascist imams on the SC would touch this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:50 PM

105. Been busy with stuff. Has the Big 'I' commenced yet?

I'm waiting, but not patiently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:50 PM

106. Not an option per Article 1 Section 3 the Senate has THE SOLE POWER TO TRY AND CONVICT IMPEACMENTS

And the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:56 PM

107. This is further acknowledgment that he's the president of only one party

He doesn’t respect the authority of any Democratic Party members. He rejects more than half of Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:27 PM

108. He's always depending on someone to defend him, because he doesn't know 'jack'.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else in the universe, so let him keep proclaiming dumb stuff. Don't try to help him by explaining things to him, because he won't listen anyway. Just let him keep walking around with that long strip of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:55 PM

111. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

what a super fucking dolt

go for it orange shit for brains

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:58 PM

112. The dumbfuck must have flunked civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 06:41 PM

117. If he has that right, then he has that right. Using OPM (other people's money) for his own use again

He belongs in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread