Justice Ruth Ginsburg hospitalized

[HoughMade]

Someone point out the part of the Constitution where the President can't do something after articles of impeachment were passed, but before trial in the Senate.

As for what the Senate will or won't find time for.....no one knows.

New Justice on the Court during impeachment? Who cares? The only justice involved is the Chief Justice.

Someone is just speculating about why the delay....without much basis in reality.

 

[T.Lex]

Someone point out the part of the Constitution where the President can't do something after articles of impeachment were passed, but before trial in the Senate.

As for what the Senate will or won't find time for.....no one knows.

New Justice on the Court during impeachment? Who cares? The only justice involved is the Chief Justice.

Someone is just speculating about why the delay....without much basis in reality.

The POTUS could appoint a new justice, then appoint that justice CJ (after confirmation).... but ... yeah. I don't see how un-convicted articles of impeachment disrupt that at all.

 

[HoughMade]

The POTUS could appoint a new justice, then appoint that justice CJ (after confirmation).... but ... yeah. I don't see how un-convicted articles of impeachment disrupt that at all.

Well, yeah....but....so what? No one who could get confirmed would abandon the separation of powers doctrine and dismiss the charges sua sponte​.

 

[mmpsteve]

Well, yeah....but....so what? No one who could get confirmed would abandon the separation of powers doctrine and dismiss the charges sua sponte​.

I don't know the proper terminology, but can and/or would any CJ allow McConnell to call for a vote to dismiss the whole trial as an improper or 'frivolous' impeachment? And if so, would that require a 2/3 majority to pass, and could the Repubs get around that for a simple majority vote?

.

 

[HoughMade]

Personal opinion? The CJ will not get in the way of the Senate doing anything. Only if there was an actual trial and ruling as to evidence had to be made would the CJ use his power to "preside".

 

[BugI02]

What occurs to me is saying any appointment made by Trump when he might be convicted would arguably (in the progressive mind) be illegitimate, and seeking to drag out that 'window'. But no, after he was sworn in he either is president or he is not, there is no superposition. If he appoints a successor to DeadRBG and senate confirms, that person is a SC justice

 

[T.Lex]

Personal opinion? The CJ will not get in the way of the Senate doing anything. Only if there was an actual trial and ruling as to evidence had to be made would the CJ use his power to "preside".

Yeah, this.

If there's a legitimate motion in the senate, then the senate rules applicable to the motion would control. I'm not sure if a motion to dismiss would be procedural or substantive or something - that gets WAY deep into Senate rules. At least a majority, maybe 2/3.

 

[printcraft]

Someone point out the part of the Constitution where the President can't do something after articles of impeachment were passed, but before trial in the Senate.......

You do know that is not relevant in the collective mind of the media and democrats right?

"HE CAN'T NOMINATE BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED!!" will be the collective cry, Constitution be damned.

 

[BugI02]

So what's their end game? To have rulings go in favor of conservatives 6-2 instead of 6-3?

 

[Alamo]

Possible source (of "prez can't appoint SCOTUS while impeached" rumor): https://pjmedia.com/trending/mark-l...rump-from-getting-another-supreme-court-pick/
I don't think I would be speechifying on the radio based on my neighbor said without running it to ground, but then I don't have a radio program, so moot point.

I just took a look at the text of the US Constitution. It mentions "impeachment" six times. In none of them does it appear to restrict the president (or anyone else being impeached) from anything unless they are convicted by the Senate. The only part that mentions any kind of restriction is in Article I, Section 3, enumerating the powers and duties of the Senate:

[6] The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

[7] Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.​

ETA: Added the text about conviction (para [6])

 

[T.Lex]

Wait.

I might've figured it out.

This is a callback to Gorsuch.

If the Senate made it clear that they wouldn't vote to confirm a SCOTUS appointment in the last year of a POTUS's term because the new POTUS should be allowed that process, then the "logic" would be that with impeachment pending (or whatever) then the decision about the new justice should wait until there might be a new POTUS.

MANY problems with that. And none of them even involve the POTUS ability to nominate. Obama opted not to push the senate's hand (as I recall). That was his decision.

 

[HoughMade]

It's more likely that the Dems would want to hold this up so that the Senate has to vote closer to the election and "side with Trump" (or the law, or sanity...which are not often the same as siding with Trump) and make sure impeachment talk is swirling while he is seeking reelection.

Orrrrrrrr- in true conspiracy theory style, wait until after the election altogether and hope the complexion of the Senate will change (but it won't change by THAT much...and if it did Trump wouldn't be reelected anyway).

 

[Alamo]

p.s. While the House Dems were futzing around with their "impeachment" drivel, Cocaine Mitch got another 11 of PrezDJT's federal judge nominees through the Senate.

"My motto for the remainder of this Congress is 'leave no vacancy behind,'" McConnell told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday. ​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/senate-mcconnell-judges/index.html[/FONT]

 

[Alamo]

It's more likely that the Dems would want to hold this up so that the Senate has to vote closer to the election and "side with Trump" (or the law, or sanity...which are not often the same as siding with Trump) and make sure impeachment talk is swirling while he is seeking reelection.

Trump comes down on the sanity side a lot more often than many want to give him credit for. Often ungraciously, yes.

Quote from the Constitution:

[5] The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ​

Orrrrrrrr- in true conspiracy theory style, wait until after the election altogether and hope the complexion of the Senate will change (but it won't change by THAT much...and if it did Trump wouldn't be reelected anyway).

​

Aside from listing the basis of impeachment as "

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

and the limiting of judgment that I quoted earlier, the above quote is the sole mention of how impeachment happens. The House has the power, period.

Which means a future Republican House could withdraw/overrule/supercede/quash the impeachment that hadn't been acted on by the Senate, no?​

​

 

[T.Lex]

Which means a future Republican House could withdraw/overrule/supercede/quash the impeachment that hadn't been acted on by the Senate, no?​

​

Now there's an interesting idea.

Indeed, while I haven't researched it, from a Roberts Rules of Order perspective, it seems like a subsequent House (or even the same one), could vote to repeal the articles of impeachment.

That'd be a fascinating historic turn of events.

 

[chipbennett]

Ahh Hah...

Just heard on the radio that while the Trump impeachment is being held up between the House and the Senate our president CANNOT nominate a candidate for SCOTUS.

Nancy could hold this up through the election, just in case there became a SCOTUS opening.

Whomever is talking on the radio should probably spend more time reading the constitution and less time making things up out of whole cloth.

 

[chipbennett]

Someone said on the other thread that the Senate doesn't have to wait for the Nancy to forward the Golden Impeachment to the Senate chambers, that they can make their own rules, and start when they want.

.

Yes, this is true. The constitution, and SCOTUS opinion on the matter, are quite clear. Within the confines of constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, the House has full sovereignty in setting its own rules of proceeding (including impeachment proceedings), and the Senate has full sovereignty in setting its own rules of proceeding (including impeachment trial proceedings). The constitution says that the House has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has the sole power to conduct an impeachment trial.

That means that the House has no control or influence over how the Senate conducts an impeachment trial. Further, by voting for impeachment, the House has completed its constitutionally enumerated act of impeachment. The Senate now has full authority to perform its subsequent act of conducting an impeachment trial. The constitution says nothing at all about the House filing anything with the Senate, or appointing impeachment managers, or anything else being bandied about. All of those things are being discussed because they currently are defined by Senate rules of proceeding for an impeachment trial.

Thus, the Senate is free to amend its own rules of proceeding for an impeachment trial, and requires no input from or consent of the House. Further, if the House attempted to intervene, in so doing it would create a constitutional separation-of-powers issue.

 

[chipbennett]

Someone point out the part of the Constitution where the President can't do something after articles of impeachment were passed, but before trial in the Senate.

As for what the Senate will or won't find time for.....no one knows.

New Justice on the Court during impeachment? Who cares? The only justice involved is the Chief Justice.

Someone is just speculating about why the delay....without much basis in reality.

This would be a pretty neat trick by the legislative branch to get around executive checks and balances. It would essentially handcuff the president from carrying out constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and authority.

Further, the legislative branch could circumvent presidential vetoes, by passing all manner of legislation, that the president would then be prevented from vetoing. 10 days later, assuming Congress is still in session: voila, new law, with the president powerless to prevent it.

 

[chipbennett]

It's more likely that the Dems would want to hold this up so that the Senate has to vote closer to the election and "side with Trump" (or the law, or sanity...which are not often the same as siding with Trump) and make sure impeachment talk is swirling while he is seeking reelection.

Orrrrrrrr- in true conspiracy theory style, wait until after the election altogether and hope the complexion of the Senate will change (but it won't change by THAT much...and if it did Trump wouldn't be reelected anyway).

...at which time the extant articles of impeachment will be dead, because the current congressional session will have ended. I've seen this posited a few times, and I really don't get it.

 

[chipbennett]

Now there's an interesting idea.

Indeed, while I haven't researched it, from a Roberts Rules of Order perspective, it seems like a subsequent House (or even the same one), could vote to repeal the articles of impeachment.

That'd be a fascinating historic turn of events.

What would there be to repeal, if the 116th Congress House never "files" the impeachment with the Senate? The impeachment would die with the congressional session.