Is Mitch playing Opossum?

Earl said:
Walter, Walter, Walter.

The Supreme Court can not overrule an impeachment. I didn’t post that.

Here is what I posted. The Supreme Court has ruled that the HOUSE, mentioned in the Constitution concerning “ the House has sole authority for impeachment,”refers to the FULL House.

The full HOUSE can begin an impeachment hearing or vote Articles of impeachment but a committee can do neither.

You owe me 200 dollars for tutorial fees, Walter.
Click to expand...

Why can't you say in which case the Supreme Court ruled how impeachments were to be investigated? You have literally had dozens of chances. You keep saying it happened, but cannot say which case it happened in, or even what part of the Constitution even mentions the investigation. In fact, the Constitution does not say there needs to be an investigation. If you can get 51% of the House to vote for impeachment based on a TV show they saw last night, that is good enough for the Constitution.

For the Supreme Court to rule that a certain process voids an impeachment would require the Supreme Court to rule that it happened in an actual case. The Supreme Court only rules on actual cases, not hypotheticals. That would mean the Supreme Court overruled an impeachment, because the wrong procedure was followed. That would be huge, because, as you mention, the House has sole authority for impeachment.
 
Walt said:
It is sad that the Republicans feel the need to lie about what I post. You would think they could just post the case that the Supreme Court ruled that they had the right to overrule impeachments.
Click to expand...

It’s not a question of rights but of authority.

As a co-equal branch of government SCOTUS has sole purview over questions regarding the constitution. If the House didn’t follow the letter of the constitution during the House impeachment process they can certainly rule on it.

Are you saying they can’t?
 
Indeed. A House committee does not have the Constitutional authority to begin an impeachment inquiry, or to issue an impeachment charge (Articles).

Only the full House has that authority.
 
Earl said:
It appears that the fanatical Democrats have ceded defeat on impeachment conviction in the Senate and are now using, “well, it was an unfair Senate trial.” They will whine and sulk for the next 40 years

The Senate has conducted a far more fair trial than the, behind closed doors, no Republican witnesses and no legal representation by the president’s lawyers.
Click to expand...

the whining will be even worse when they lose the presidency and the House in November.......
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s not a question of rights but of authority.

As a co-equal branch of government SCOTUS has sole purview over questions regarding the constitution. If the House didn’t follow the letter of the constitution during the House impeachment process they can certainly rule on it.

Are you saying they can’t?
Click to expand...

The letter of the Constitution is they have sole authority. It does not say how they should decide who is to be impeached. Much like the Senate does not have to call witnesses, the House does not need to investigate in any way that other branches of government can decide.

Or are you also willing to let the Senate be overruled?
 
Earl said:
Indeed. A House committee does not have the Constitutional authority to begin an impeachment inquiry, or to issue an impeachment charge (Articles).

Only the full House has that authority.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where is there a Supreme Court decision to that regard? You know if you could prove any of your claims, you would sure make me look silly... Instead, all you can do is make up things I never said.

The term "impeachment inquiry" and "impeachment investigation" appear no where in the Constitution. That means anyone can start one. If the Amish or the Boy Scouts come up with a report that 50+% of the House believes, and votes for an impeachment based on, that is their SOLE AUTHORITY according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no constitutional right to second guess the House's judgement on this.
 
Walt said:
The letter of the Constitution is they have sole authority. It does not say how they should decide who is to be impeached. Much like the Senate does not have to call witnesses, the House does not need to investigate in any way that other branches of government can decide.

Or are you also willing to let the Senate be overruled?
Click to expand...

SCOTUS obviously has no say who is impeached.

But the constitution mandates certain requirements for the impeachment process. My understanding is one *constitutional* stipulation is the House—the full House and not just a House Committee, votes on whether to open an impeachment inquiry.

If my understanding is correct, then the House impeachment process can certainly be looked at by SCOTUS. And it should be looked at. We all care about the integrity of the impeachment process, right?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the whining will be even worse when they lose the presidency and the House in November.......
Click to expand...

If that happens, then Republicans can block any new impeachments as of January of 2021. If Democrats retain the House, then they can continue impeachments. If Democrats gain the White House, then criminal charges can be pressed against trump. You see, elections have consequences.
 
Darth Omar said:
SCOTUS obviously has no say who is impeached.

But the constitution mandates certain requirements for the impeachment process. My understanding is one *constitutional* stipulation is the House—the full House and not just a House Committee, votes on whether to open an impeachment inquiry.

If my understanding is correct, then the House impeachment process can certainly be looked at by SCOTUS. And it should be looked at. We all care about the integrity of the impeachment process, right?
Click to expand...
Jay Seculow explained this beautifully.

Even old Walt should understand it.
 
Walt said:
If that happens, then Republicans can block any new impeachments as of January of 2021. If Democrats retain the House, then they can continue impeachments. If Democrats gain the White House, then criminal charges can be pressed against trump. You see, elections have consequences.
Click to expand...

you idiots should have realized that in 2016......
 
Darth Omar said:
But the constitution mandates certain requirements for the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

Where does it mandate that? My reading of the Constitution has no mandates before the vote to impeach. That is important, because in an extreme situation there might need to be a near instant impeachment.

Lets say that trump announced we were going to surrender to Putin, and Russian troops were going to arrive to occupy the USA right away. That would definitely be enough to get the House to vote for impeachment immediately, without taking any evidence. While I doubt that would be enough for 67 Senators to vote to convict, lets say the Republican Senators are better than I believe, they could vote to impeach in a few hours.

When the Constitution was written, troop movements took months, so being able to impeach a President in a day or two total was plenty fast enough.

Darth Omar said:
My understanding is one *constitutional* stipulation is the House—the full House and not just a House Committee, votes on whether to open an impeachment inquiry.
Click to expand...

And my understanding of the Constitution is it says no such thing. The exact words are, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." It is not even a full sentence. There is absolutely no mention of any inquiry, much less what that inquiry should entail.

Darth Omar said:
We all care about the integrity of the impeachment process, right?
Click to expand...

The impeachment process is the vote. 229 and 230 Congresspeople voted for impeachment, which is definitely a majority, so there you have it. There is no accusation that the vote has been faked.

Republicans in the Senate are allowed to block witnesses, and Democrats in the House are allowed to not even bother to investigate.
 
The closest thing I can think of to what Earl is claiming is the Judge Douglas impeachment attempt. Oddly enough, it was run by Ford(who was still in the House), with the backing of President Nixon. Ford claimed he had investigated with the help of the Nixon Administration and there was no need for the Congress to do any inquiry. He claimed that Judge Douglas had written an article for a magazine connected to pornography. When the Democrats asked to see the pornography, Ford claimed it was too pornographic to present as evidence. This caused Congressman Hayes to ask Ford, "Has anybody read the article – or is everybody over there who has a magazine just looking at the pictures?"

Anyway, it became clear that Congress would never vote for impeachment, so the impeachment resolution was allowed to die without a vote. There was no claim that not having an investigation was unconstitutional. It is just that Congress was unconvinced by the lack of investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas#Impeachment_attempts
 
Walt said:
Even USFreedom has quoted you using "brilliant lawyers". It is silly that you are even denying that now.
Click to expand...

No I didn't; but you did say you like the taste of lube and that's why you don't mind sucking cock, right after you've been ass fucked.

:truestory:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top