'NO CASE': Trump floats taking impeachment to Supreme Court

[mystery-ak]

'NO CASE': Trump floats taking impeachment to Supreme Court
by Madison Dibble
 | December 02, 2019 06:48 PM



President Trump pondered whether the Supreme Court could intervene in the impeachment by House Democrats in a Monday evening tweet.

Trump, 73, revealed he read the report Republicans provided on the House Intelligence Committee in which they made their case against impeachment. The Republican report will stand as a defense against the report set to be released by Chairman Adam Schiff later this week laying out the Democratic case for impeaching Trump.

The president claimed that Republicans did a “great job” compiling their version of the report, saying that Democrats have “no case” and that impeachment “shouldn’t even be allowed.” He questioned whether he should take House Democrats to court over impeachment to get a ruling from the Supreme Court.

“Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed,” Trump tweeted. “Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/no-case-trump-floats-taking-impeachment-to-supreme-court

[Cyber Liberty]

The SCOTUS won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole.

[Wingnut]

The SCOTUS won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole.

Nor should they.   This one needs to stay down in the cesspool of the congress. 

[PeteS in CA]

The SCOTUS won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole.

I'm not sure they have the Constitutional authority to interfere with the House.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not sure they have the Constitutional authority to interfere with the House.

I don't think I want the SCOTUS getting any ideas about arrogating that authority to themselves.  I hope Trump doesn't ask them to.

[bigheadfred]

I'm not sure they have the Constitutional authority to interfere with the House.

I think they could make a ruling as a matter of law. Impeaching someone for the hell of it may be overturned since for the hell of it isn't enumerated by the Constitution.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It's gonna get there eventually.

[Snarknado]

It's a ridiculous idea. There's no way to take the case to SCOTUS, even if there was they'd decline to hear it rather than set a terrible precedent. Roberts is probably dreading his involvement in the trial as it is - no matter what he does he'll get vilified by one side or the other.

[Fishrrman]

Snark wrote:
"Roberts is probably dreading his involvement in the trial as it is - no matter what he does he'll get vilified by one side or the other."

Then Mr. Roberts should graciously step aside, recuse himself, and appoint Justice Clarence Thomas to preside over the Senate trial.

[Wingnut]

It's gonna get there eventually.

Want to make a bet?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

It's gonna get there eventually.

Want to make a bet?

It was in the thread I posted and you disappeared from this sub forum.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/472774-appeals-court-rules-deutsche-bank-must-turn-over-trump-financial
Appeals court rules Deutsche Bank must turn over Trump financial records to House

“We believe the subpoena is invalid as issued," Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal attorney, wrote on Twitter. "In light of the Second Circuit decision, we are evaluating our next options including seeking review at the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Last month, the Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay of a House Oversight Committee subpoena of Trump's financial records from the accounting firm Mazars. The stay will be in place while the justices deliberate over whether to grant the president's request for a review of the appellate court decision.

Trump has also petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit ruling ordering Mazars to comply with the Manhattan district attorney's subpoena for the president's tax returns and other financial records.

Now you may ignore the facts again.

[libertybele]

I'm not sure they have the Constitutional authority to interfere with the House.

I don't think they do. On what basis would Trump ask the SCOTUS to rule on impeachment?  The House has that authority granted to them by the Constitution. Perhaps he could ask them to rule on whether or not they used the correct procedures?  Even at that, I think he'd be hard pressed to make a case and IMHO once again, Trump opens his mouth when he should have kept it shut.

[Jazzhead]

The SCOTUS won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole.

No,  but there is the precedent of a motion to dismiss.   It was made by Democrats at the start of Clinton's Senate trial and narrowly defeated.   All it takes is a majority vote -  so what can be done to persuade Romney,  Murkowski and Collins that, on the basis of the competing majority and minority House reports,  the case has been laid out for the edification of the people and that a Senate trial would be simply prolonging a national nightmare,  especially given the proximity of the election? 

This is theater, of the tragic variety.   Meanwhile, there are urgent matters of government that are being shunted aside.   Yes,  Trump wants to prolong the theater as much as the most partisan Dems do,  because that's his thing.   But the rest of us are weary of the insular hatred that infects Washington.  Let's lance the boil.   

I support a vote on a motion to dismiss on the first day of a Senate trial.   GOP Senate leadership should start working behind the scenes now to make sure it has the votes to  pass.     

[Cyber Liberty]

It was in the thread I posted and you disappeared from this sub forum.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/472774-appeals-court-rules-deutsche-bank-must-turn-over-trump-financial
Appeals court rules Deutsche Bank must turn over Trump financial records to House

Now you may ignore the facts again.

This thread is about Impeachment, not Deutsche-Bank.  Please stay on topic with your trolling.

[Cyber Liberty]

No,  but there is the precedent of a motion to dismiss.   It was made by Democrats at the start of Clinton's Senate trial and narrowly defeated.   All it takes is a majority vote -  so what can be done to persuade Romney,  Murkowski and Collins that, on the basis of the competing majority and minority House reports,  the case has been laid out for the edification of the people and that a Senate trial would be simply prolonging a national nightmare,  especially given the proximity of the election? 

This is theater, of the tragic variety.   Meanwhile, there are urgent matters of government that are being shunted aside.   Yes,  Trump wants to prolong the theater as much as the most partisan Dems do,  because that's his thing.   But the rest of us are weary of the insular hatred that infects Washington.  Let's lance the boil.   

I support a vote on a motion to dismiss on the first day of a Senate trial.   GOP Senate leadership should start working behind the scenes now to make sure it has the votes to  pass.     

A Motion to Dismiss makes sense, and is in line with what the Republicans have been saying all along about this "case."  As for the SCOTUS, I hope they stay the Hell out of it.  They've already usurped too much authority over the government.

[Snarknado]

Dismissal would be painted as a whitewash. A trial could have a lot of political advantages and lend weight to the inevitable acquittal, especially considering that the trial duration gets us that much closer to the election. The only danger I can see is the possibility that the dems have some damaging surprise evidence to spring at the trial.