It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will trump ask SCOTUS to overturn his impeachment after acquittal ?

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

There's nothing to overturn, it's a political process, not a legal (court) process.




posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can always count on you for correct verbiage . Lol

Renquist used the words “invalidated” and “retrial” in the majority opinion of Nixon. (Cool ? )

On top of that .

If the conduct of the house is found to be eligible for “judicial “ review .

That in itself would make it a legal matter in the eyes of the court .



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Renquist used the words “invalidated” and “retrial” in the majority opinion of Nixon. (Cool ? )



Chief Justice Rehnquist said the matter was a “political question,” meaning that it was for the Senate to decide how to conduct its impeachment trials. Source








edit on 21-1-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Seriously ?

After all my research as is evident in the two threads. You didn’t think I knew that impeachment was considered a political process .

It’s only been mentioned 100 times a day for the last 5 months .

So it’s not really a gotcha statement .

In your post you said there’s nothing to “overturn “ it’s a political process . Which I agree with unless the Supreme Court takes up the case.

The chief justice also said this in his full opinion


The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.


Even though those terms were used for the case against judicial interference . They were in a supreme court legal opinion. In legalese every word, comma ,period , exclamation point and misspelling is admissible . If you’re going to challenge me on that look up the million dollar comma first .

Now to address the issue of political process . You can’t overturn a political process but you can overturn aka invalidate a judicial process .

To do that the Supreme Court would have to view Impeachment as a judicial matter .

My whole theory rest on the four justices that didn’t believe the constitution barred judicial review by the Supreme Court .

Rehnquist full opinion
edit on 21-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
To do that the Supreme Court would have to view Impeachment as a judicial matter .


In which that body has already stated it's a political process.



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nope

The “body” didn’t agree .



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Nope

The “body” didn’t agree .


It was a majority opinion, it certainly did.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I didn’t elaborate much to keep the OP from taking up three posts. Instead I gave the readers digest version to prevent exactly what I’m doing. I thought if someone had questions they would look at the link to my previous thread on Senate rules and procedures. Because we had already gone over this .

Egg on my face.

So I decided to look around some more.

Even though I know people argued against Dershowitz position. Including the liberal ACLU which is no surprise.

Alan Dershowitz gave the same scenario on judicial review in 2018 concerning the Russian investigation.

Keep in mind Blackmum agreed in White’s concurring opinion.


Dershowitz cites in his book two former Supreme Court justices — Byron White and David Souter — as suggesting there may be room for court oversight of impeachment decisions.


Washington Examiner

Here’s a typical counter argument from the left. From the liberal Lawfareblog.

They conclude that it’s “probably” non-judicial. They linked Dershowitz essay . But their argument has no mention of Blackmum, White, Souter and in this scenario Stevens. Which makes the majority decision 5 to 4 on judicial review-ability.

Whose concurring opinions could leave the door open .


Concurring opinion
An opinion written by a judge who agrees with the decision that was held by the majority but either for a different reason or to provide a substantive addition to the written opinion of the decision.


Legal dictionary

Concurring opinion‘s are known as persuasive precedent.

As an example I’ll give the pertinent quote from the opening of White and Blackmum’s concurring opinion.


The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to consider his contention.(Nixon) I find no such prohibition


Nixon vs the US

Instead The liberal lawyers at the lawfareblog portrayed Nixon versus the United States as a absolute agreement that neither impeachment proceedings falls under SCOTUS jurisdiction.


The Supreme Court has already barred the possibility that it could serve as a court of appeals for impeachment in Nixon v. U.S. I


ACLU 2.0

I’m not saying that although Trump has talked about it twice. He will appeal the impeachment. I’m not saying that I have everything figured out.

I’m saying that the Supreme Court’s door to judicial review of the impeachment process has not been slammed shut.

Despite what the media hammers into our heads .

The best way to Deny Ignorance is come up with an independent theory research it then present it. If you’re right you’re right. If you’re wrong you’re wrong. But either way you open peoples minds up to new ideas .

Don’t follow their narrative follow yours. Or you’ll be plodding along in a bovine nature mooing to their tune.

Which is exactly what they want.

We spent too much time here letting the media put words in our mouth.








edit on 22-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here’s your full quote .


In which that body has already stated it's a political process.


I don’t see the word majority in there anywhere .



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I don’t see the word majority in there anywhere .



The court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Our discussion was over your statement not the opinion .


In which that body has already stated it's a political process.


Nope I don’t see the word majority anywhere in your claim.


Your playing games so let’s cut to the chase .


Is it your position that all nine justices ruled that the Supreme Court could “never” interfere in the judicial process.

Yes or no ?



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

The majority said it was political. Feel better now?



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Since that was my position from the beginning yes .

Thanks for playing



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Since that was my position from the beginning yes .

Thanks for playing


You two guys crack me up.

Sophistry at it's finest!




posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Lol

Accusing someone of Sophistry is a fallacy fallacy . Lol



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Since that was my position from the beginning yes .

Thanks for playing


Which takes it back to there's nothing to overturn since it's political.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you are saying the opinion of no judicial interference ever was unanimous .

Just trying to get your position straight . 😘



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I said what I said. Reread it again if you need to.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Pass

All you were doing was playing games anyway.

I’ve quoted from the opinions. Linked opinions, explained in detail in the OP and at least two different lengthy post . I also linked one other thread.

That goes over the whole explanation again .

Yet I can’t get you to acknowledge the FACT (lol) that four justices didn’t agree with the majority opinion that the Supreme Court was barred from interfering in the impeachment process . ( dishonesty )

I even agreed with you that at this point in time it’s still a political process. ( honesty )

( This is eerily similar to another thread of mine ).

But when they look into a constitutional violation along the grounds of abuse of power .

It’s a constitutional case being heard in a appellate court under the authority of Marbury vs Madison and under judicial review . The constitution is the law of the land which puts Marbury vs Madison grants the judicial branch of the government sole power to interpret the Constitution illegally ., which ports the case in the lap of the judicial branch of the government .

It’s not a political appellate court being heard under political review .

Do you want to know why ?

I’ll tell you why.

It’s because there’s no such thing ! Lol

If the Supreme Court decided to hear the case . It would no longer be a political process .

It would be a case in a court of law being studied for constitutional violations .

I was being ill mannered in front of others .

And God knows I don’t need anybody else mad at me .

Which made me decide to clarify my opinion again . ( see above )

So that explanation was pretty much for everybody else. Who wasn’t a jerk which excludes you and I .

I’ll gladly discuss it with.

But you not so much . ✌️


* my attempt at humor in this post was born of frustration. So it might not of got there .


edit on 22-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Fallingdown

There's nothing to overturn, it's a political process, not a legal (court) process.


by your statement you grasp the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements of seperatiom of powers.

I think you miss a few other concepts that our CONSTITUTION requires .

one ... CHECKS AND BALANCES
the judicial is a CHECK AND BALANCE to the legislative and executive brances.

they are REQUIRED (if they do great, but sadly dont sometimes , but thats another issue) to take any question (be law, proceedure and yes even POLITICAL PROCESS0 and see if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.

so if trump (for purposes of this discussion) feels with REASONABLE EVIDENCE then its up to the courts to look at the evidence and see if the item in question is constitutional or not.

if it is and/or there is president ALREADY SET (aka this has been dealth with before) then (which is not done alot lately due to activist judges but again another issue) the case is denied.

if it isnt then the courts issue a rulling that whatever was brought up is unconstitutional and cannot be allowed.

with injunctions TEMPORARY given as the case is worked out.

with the supreme court (if it gets to that level) the FINAL DECISION to which both sides can appeal to

so there you go

scrounger




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join