Justice Ruth Ginsburg hospitalized

[chipbennett]

Why do you think they would not act on an appointment?

Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.

McConnell already said he would act in an election year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's a can-if-they-want-to kind of thing.

 

[chipbennett]

McConnell already said he would act in an election year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/

That doesn't surprise me.

And he would earn all of the criticism he would receive for doing so.

 

[KLB]

Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.

That is only when the President is of the other party.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm curious, can Speaker Nancy permanently shelve the impeachment at this point, locking it up under seal in one of the byzantine law offices in dc or does it eventually have to be brought forward, time expire so to speak. The impeachment has accomplished politically all they want.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I could only see the SCOTUS conflict if he was nominating the Chief Justice. That is the only member that is in play during the impeachment.

 

[NyleRN]

That is only when the President is of the other party.

Obama was a lame duck also

 

[NyleRN]

Certainly, I agree with this. It's not much of a play, but it's all I can see Pelosi having.

Otherwise, it's a "court of public opinion" thing, where she prevents the Senate from holding a trial, and then tries to play the "an impeached President shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until the Senate settles the impeachment matter." The problem there, of course is a) the House would be actively obstructing the Senate from doing so, and b) at this point, any SCOTUS vacancy will happen in 2020, which is an election year. As such, it is doubtful the Senate would act on a nomination anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the POTUS can petition SCOTUS to force the Speaker to transmit articles to the Senate

 

[T.Lex]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the POTUS can petition SCOTUS to force the Speaker to transmit articles to the Senate

I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.

 

[BugI02]

That doesn't surprise me.

And he would earn all of the criticism he would receive for doing so.

I think the Democrats in congress have more than earned all the disregard they will get. Can't see them making any sort of plea towards tradition after the **** they've pulled in the last three years. Might play inside the beltway, but nowhere else

Damn the torpedos

 

[NyleRN]

I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.

Yes, mandamus was the word I was looking for. Let see if I can go back and find where I read it. *I think* it was in a tweet from that goofy constitutional scholar guy.

 

[Alamo]

I'm talking particularly about the situation in which the House of its own volition fails to take the articles of impeachment to the Senate. In the following congressional term, the new House will have no obligation to act on those articles of impeachment. Though, in the situation in which the House does take the articles to the Senate, and the Senate chooses not to dispose of them, that gets a bit trickier (particularly since the Senate has adopted rules that require them to dispose of articles of impeachment).

So it appears that you are saying the Articles of Impeachment do NOT die with the end of the session. If a following House session

can take or send (or not) the same articles to the Senate (whatever "take" or "send" means) without going through the House rules for the impeachment again (which would be a new impeachment effort), then the Articles still have force. Particularly if is this is solely based on whether the House Speaker decides to send them to the Senate, versus a full vote of the House.
​

The following House would have no obligation to do anything, but I don't think it is the case that if the current House does nothing else the Articles are dead.

But really, there's nothing else for the House to do. It voted for the impeachment, it exists, and now the Senate has the sole power to decide what to do with it.

And because the Senate has the sole power to convict and pronounce judgment, either the impeachment exists now or it doesn't. Once the prez is impeached, the House's power ends and it is up to the Senate what happens next. If Nancy is saying the Senate can't move unless she sends over some pieces of paper, then she is saying that the prez has not been impeached yet.
​

…
..
Procedurally, you may be right.

I've worked with legislative bodies before. And if I were counsel to the House (which I'm not) and they wanted to undo the articles of impeachment, I would still have them take an official vote on the repeal.

There was an official, recorded vote on the articles of impeachment. Symmetry requires the same kind of vote to cleanly repeal them. If not, it is another manufactured gray area.

I agree it would be much cleaner for a follow-on House to vote to repeal a previous House's Articles of Impeachment (as long as the Senate hasn't acted), but that would set the precedent that Articles of Impeachment do in fact outlast the House in which they were adopted.

 

[BugI02]

I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.

I'm betting SCOTUS would not wish to fish in these waters unless all other avenues were exhausted, and maybe not even then

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, mandamus was the word I was looking for. Let see if I can go back and find where I read it. *I think* it was in a tweet from that goofy constitutional scholar guy.

In VERY general terms, that mechanism is to force someone to do something they have a pre-existing obligation to do anyway. Basically a "do your job" kind of thing.

If the person has discretion whether to act, it is GENERALLY not appropriate for mandamus.

Here, it seems to me that the Speaker of the House has discretion in how the House business is handled. I don't see a mandate forcing her to send it to the Senate.

But, obviously, this is uncharted territory.

 

[KLB]

Obama was a lame duck also

And if there had been a Dem majority Merrick would have been on USSC already. It only became an issue because the Senate was controlled by the Reps.

 

[BugI02]

So it appears that you are saying the Articles of Impeachment do NOT die with the end of the session. If a following House session

can take or send (or not) the same articles to the Senate (whatever "take" or "send" means) without going through the House rules for the impeachment again (which would be a new impeachment effort), then the Articles still have force. Particularly if is this is solely based on whether the House Speaker decides to send them to the Senate, versus a full vote of the House.
​

The following House would have no obligation to do anything, but I don't think it is the case that if the current House does nothing else the Articles are dead.

But really, there's nothing else for the House to do. It voted for the impeachment, it exists, and now the Senate has the sole power to decide what to do with it.

And because the Senate has the sole power to convict and pronounce judgment, either the impeachment exists now or it doesn't. Once the prez is impeached, the House's power ends and it is up to the Senate what happens next. If Nancy is saying the Senate can't move unless she sends over some pieces of paper, then she is saying that the prez has not been impeached yet.
​

I agree it would be much cleaner for a follow-on House to vote to repeal a previous House's Articles of Impeachment (as long as the Senate hasn't acted), but that would set the precedent that Articles of Impeachment do in fact outlast the House in which they were adopted.

I've seen some ink that indicates that the House not only 'forwards' the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but also sends representatives that act somewhat like prosecutors at the trial. If Pelosi withholds those officials, perhaps she can argue any trial is not legitimate. Not sure how that works out. In lesser trials if the prosecutor fails to show for a case or send a representative and fails to seek an extension from the court, could not council move to dismiss?

Maybe Pelosi is surveying her possible prosecutors and doesn't like what she sees? It's all so stupid because she and she alone dug the hole she's in in order to cling to the speakership

 

[NyleRN]

I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.

Here ya go T. Lex

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1207557442839732225.html

 

[HoughMade]

I drafted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus once.....during my first year of practice (21 years ago)....and it was never filed.

That's how uncommon this is.

It was on this case and was all about the issue in footnote 2. Note that this was the first firm I worked for out of law school and my experience there was so negative that I left for a much better opportunity after 3 months of practice. It was neither of the firms listed on the opinion. After my boss succeeded in having a judge rule he had waived any and all atty/client privilege, the case was pulled from that firm.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1378377.html

Suffice to say, Mandamus (a/k/a Mandate) is an extreme action.

Here ya go T. Lex

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1207557442839732225.html

Read it- I'm not saying it is wrong on the law. I AM saying that the filings and rulings outlined ARE NOT mandatory. Again, I believe that the most likely scenario if ANY attempt to get SCOTUS involved is a recitation of "separation of powers" and a refusal to do anything.

 

[Alamo]

Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.

Since 1900 the Senate has confirmed nine justices to the Supreme Court during an election year. In all but one instance the Senate was controlled by the party of the President. In one case the Senate was controlled by the opposition party (Democrats), and both of the President's (Reagan) nominees (Bork and Ginsburg) were swatted down. A compromise candidate was finally confirmed - Anthony Kennedy. Technically rated a conservative, that was … not precisely complete.

Senator Joe Biden, in 1992, spoke to President GHW Bush via a floor speech in the Democrat-controlled Senate where he stated that should a SCOTUS vacancy occur during the election year the President should NOT EVEN NOMINATE anyone until after the election, and if he did nominate someone, the Senate Judiciary Committee (which Senator Biden chaired) should consider not even taking up the nomination.

I will posit that if a vacancy had occurred and GWH Bush had nominated someone after losing the election, Joe Biden would have run out the clock until Jan 20th, and the Dem's reply to Republican complaints would have been "politics ain't beanbag."

As a famous community organizer once said, "Elections have consequences."