Justice Ruth Ginsburg hospitalized

[KellyinAvon]

Prediction: It doesn’t get sent to the Senate. He is not actually impeached, but that won’t matter. It will be Spun that he was impeached, but the articles weren’t sent to the Senate because they are politically tainted or whatever. The low information crowd doesn’t know the difference.

 

[Alamo]

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

The only ink that really counts is that the Constitution says the House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. All the stuff about "forwarding" and "managers" is administrative procedures adopted by the House and the Senate, which they can change or ignore as they wish -- there is no outside power that requires them to follow their own internal rules, or keeps them from changing them.

But either Trump is impeached or he is not. If he is, it's now up to the Senate as to what to do about it. If there's nothing for the Senate to do (because the "impeachment" hasn't been "forwarded", then he's not impeached. Nancy is grandstanding, and Mitch will be morally, constitutionally, and politically (heh) to flush her nonsense down the toilet.

 

[Alamo]

Prediction: It doesn’t get sent to the Senate. He is not actually impeached, but that won’t matter. It will be Spun that he was impeached, but the articles weren’t sent to the Senate because they are politically tainted or whatever. The low information crowd doesn’t know the difference.

quite possible, even probable.

 

[Alamo]

Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.

 

[NyleRN]

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.



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.

I'm not saying it's mandatory but POTUS can petition if he chooses. Not sure how much SCOTUS wants to get involved in that. If Nancy is holding the articles, I don't see why the court wouldn't mandate Nancy to do her damn job since she's blocking due process

 

[NyleRN]

Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.

Link?

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.

I have my popcorn ready to pop for Amy Coney Barrett's impending nomination.

 

[chipbennett]

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."

Correct. It's all politics, gamesmanship, and horse trading.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Prediction: It doesn’t get sent to the Senate. He is not actually impeached, but that won’t matter. It will be Spun that he was impeached, but the articles weren’t sent to the Senate because they are politically tainted or whatever. The low information crowd doesn’t know the difference.

Your prediction is already wrong. He has been impeached. I understand being hopeful and sticking up for the guy, but c'mon. What qualifies as impeachment is spelled out, specifically, in the Constitution.

 

[chipbennett]

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.



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.

This is all uncharted territory, so anyone's (educated) guess is as good as another's (educated) guess. And my guess is anything but educated.

Would the President have grounds on the basis that he is inherently injured by being impeached, and that he is afforded constitutional due process protections and the right to a speedy trial to resolve the injury (i.e. the harm caused by the allegations in the House-approved impeachment)?

I really should look up the House standing rules for impeachment. I suspect that SCOTUS would defer to whatever the House has defined as the impeachment process, and whatever the house has defined as having duly impeached someone.

That would be a really interesting ruling, though - if SCOTUS says that the House, as it has rightfully defined in its rules, has not impeached the president because it has not completed its own, defined process of impeachment. In that case, Trump would be correct: he is not impeached. (That would be interesting, because I suspect that he would argue that any description of him as having been "impeached" becomes actionable defamation of character.)

 

[chipbennett]

Your prediction is already wrong. He has been impeached. I understand being hopeful and sticking up for the guy, but c'mon. What qualifies as impeachment is spelled out, specifically, in the Constitution.

I was at 100% agreement with this, until I talked myself down to 99%. If (a big "if", because I haven't looked at the House rules) the House rules state or imply that being "impeached" requires some action to notify the Senate, then the House has not yet completed its process, and Trump is not yet impeached. The House could a) follow its current rules to complete its own defined process, or b) change its rules such that the vote itself completes the process.

 

[BugI02]

Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.

With Amy Coney Barrett the round in the chamber

 

[KellyinAvon]

I was at 100% agreement with this, until I talked myself down to 99%. If (a big "if", because I haven't looked at the House rules) the House rules state or imply that being "impeached" requires some action to notify the Senate, then the House has not yet completed its process, and Trump is not yet impeached. The House could a) follow its current rules to complete its own defined process, or b) change its rules such that the vote itself completes the process.

When they start using the same word or words, you’ll know they’re done running the focus groups on how to spin it. Even their own constitutional scholar came out and said it’s not impeachment unless it gets forwarded to the Senate. This is all politics and all spin.

 

[KG1]

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.

I would agree that indeed she has that discretion concerning House business but she absolutely does not have the same discretion to dictate to the Senate on how to conduct their business. That's where she is going off the rails here.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm now looking at the House rules on impeachment (or, at least, a Guide published by the Government Publishing Office:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm

This is interesting:

"The term ``impeach'' is used in different ways at various stages of the proceedings. A Member rises on the floor to ``impeach'' an officer in presenting a resolution or memorial. 3 Hinds Sec. 2469. The House votes to ``impeach'' in the constitutional sense when it adopts an impeachment resolution and accompanying articles. Sec. 8, infra. The Senate then conducts a trial on these articles and either convicts by two-thirds vote or acquits the ``impeached'' Federal official. Sec. 9, infra."

So, looking at Section 8:

"Sec. 8 . Consideration in the House; Voting

Generally

The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment. Only a majority vote is necessary, whereas a two-thirds vote of Members present is required in the Senate for conviction and removal."

I found the 115th Congress House Rules (the "Jefferson Manual"):

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-115/pdf/HMAN-115.pdf

I find this reference (from Section 607):

"Its committee on investigation having reported, the House may vote theimpeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2,1936, pp. 3067–91), and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate..."

This can be read in one of two ways:

1. Impeachment is accomplished with the impeachment vote. The provision for subsequent House action of assigning managers is dependent on the House notifying the Senate, but this process is part of the Senate trial, not of the House impeachment.

2. The Impeachment is a process that includes the impeachment vote, notification of the Senate, and appointment of managers.

Regarding the question of continuing an impeachment before the Senate from session to session (section 592):

"When it was said above that all matters depending before Parliament werediscontinued by the determinationof the session, it was not meant forjudiciary cases depending before the House ofLords, such as impeachments, appeals, andwrits of error. These stand continued, of course,to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac.,L. D., Parliament.Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate of the United States."

I note that this says nothing about the House.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was at 100% agreement with this, until I talked myself down to 99%. If (a big "if", because I haven't looked at the House rules) the House rules state or imply that being "impeached" requires some action to notify the Senate, then the House has not yet completed its process, and Trump is not yet impeached. The House could a) follow its current rules to complete its own defined process, or b) change its rules such that the vote itself completes the process.

I would doubt the language, of the House rules, would accommodate that line of thinking. It would need to purposefully put in the exception. If a rule exists, it probably along the lines of "After impeachment in the house, articles will be forwarded to the Senate." I have a hard time imagining that the language would say "Impeachment is not complete until the articles have been forwarded to the Senate." Also given how rabid the House Republicans are to please the president, if such language did exist, they would have spilled the beans minutes after Pelosi stated she was holding the articles.

 

[chipbennett]

I would doubt the language, of the House rules, would accommodate that line of thinking. It would need to purposefully put in the exception. If a rule exists, it probably along the lines of "After impeachment in the house, articles will be forwarded to the Senate." I have a hard time imagining that the language would say "Impeachment is not complete until the articles have been forwarded to the Senate." Also given how rabid the House Republicans are to please the president, if such language did exist, they would have spilled the beans minutes after Pelosi stated she was holding the articles.

Taken from the perspective of the constitution, I'm aligned with you: the House voted affirmatively for articles of impeachment, and therefore Trump is impeached.

 

[T.Lex]

I would agree that indeed she has that discretion concerning House business but she absolutely does not have the same discretion to dictate to the Senate on how to conduct their business. That's where she is going off the rails here.

Well, it can't be the Senate's business if it isn't introduced or formally provided to them.

As noted, this is a blank slate. McConnell may have the ability (if not the motivation) to introduce a resolution acknowledging the House vote on the articles of impeachment and adopting that vote as the trigger for the trial.

It was a public hearing. Votes were cast. Articles were adopted.

It would really be a bit remarkable to think that the Speaker of the House could basically have a pocket veto of articles of impeachment. That's what this is.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, it can't be the Senate's business if it isn't introduced or formally provided to them.

As noted, this is a blank slate. McConnell may have the ability (if not the motivation) to introduce a resolution acknowledging the House vote on the articles of impeachment and adopting that vote as the trigger for the trial.

It was a public hearing. Votes were cast. Articles were adopted.

It would really be a bit remarkable to think that the Speaker of the House could basically have a pocket veto of articles of impeachment. That's what this is.

That's the thing: the constitution is silent on this question. If the Senate says, "it's our business now, because we declare it to be our business" on what grounds could the House dispute?

Honestly, I think Pelosi might be trying to create a constitutional crisis, in part to further attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok.

Apparently this is the source for the procedure, but doesn't really help.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf

I. Whensoever the Senate shali receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to con- duct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

So, the Speaker does appear to have some sort of pocket veto by not allowing the appointment of the impeachment managers.