National Review confirms "startling" report on Trumps grasp of reality.

[Deuce]

Read the concurring opinions. The only unanimous opinion was that Nixon’s impeachment - specifically - was not justiciable. They did not preclude the possibility that a future impeachment would be and three of the justices explicitly said it was a distinct possibility.

Quote the language you think supports your argument. You have to prove yourself right, I am not obligated to do YOUR research for you.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Read the concurring opinions. The only unanimous opinion was that Nixon’s impeachment - specifically - was not justiciable. They did not preclude the possibility that a future impeachment would be and three of the justices explicitly said it was a distinct possibility.

None of those concurrences claimed or even implied that the Court has the authority to determine what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is.

 

[Napoleon]

But it doesn't define "high crimes and misdemeanors" - and the Supreme Court has made it clear that high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.

You're misreading Souter, that's my point.

I directly quoted what Souter wrote so I’m not misreading anything. Congress cannot decide that being illegitimately elected - the machinations of which may not involve the President at all - is a high crime or misdemeanor anymore than deciding that eating an onion bagel is a high crime or misdemeanor for the purpose of impeachment.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I really do love internet lawyers.

 

[Napoleon]

Quote the language you think supports your argument. You have to prove yourself right, I am not obligated to do YOUR research for you.

Why don’t you start reading posts before responding and stop your bellyaching about something I didn’t ask you to do.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I directly quoted what Souter wrote so I’m not misreading anything.

The quote you posted doesn't come close to supporting your argument. The fact that you don't see that means you're not understanding it.

Congress cannot decide that being illegitimately elected - the machinations of which may not involve the President at all - is a high crime or misdemeanor anymore than deciding that eating an onion bagel is a high crime or misdemeanor for the purpose of impeachment.

Yes, they can. In both cases.

 

[Napoleon]

The quote you posted doesn't come close to supporting your argument. The fact that you don't see that means you're not understanding it.



Yes, they can. In both cases.

So your contention is that a Republican Congress can impeach and remove Joe Biden for eating an onion bagel and there is no recourse? You really need to reread the concurring opinions.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

So your contention is that a Republican Congress can impeach and remove Joe Biden for eating an onion bagel and there is no recourse?

Yes.

You really need to reread the concurring opinions.

No, I don't. I assure you, I've read them many more times that necessary. But maybe you should go to law school.

 

[BitterPill]

I really do love internet lawyers.

Except when one needs a doctor.

 

[Deuce]

So your contention is that a Republican Congress can impeach and remove Joe Biden for eating an onion bagel and there is no recourse? You really need to reread the concurring opinions.

Again, cite language from those opinions that supports your argument.

You can't.

 

[Napoleon]

Again, cite language from those opinions that supports your argument.

You can't.

See posts 528 and 537.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes.



No, I don't. I assure you, I've read them many more times that necessary. But maybe you should go to law school.

Reading is fundamental. You apparently never read the concurring opinions. The opinion by Justices White and Justice Blackmun stated clearly that they believed impeachment to be justiciable - including that very case. Justice Souter also wrote a concurring opinion that impeachment could be justiciable. Go back to grade school.

 

[NWRatCon]

And if the State Legislatures choose new electors and do it all over again, Congress has no authority to refuse to count again.

Of course they do. They have no obligation to do anything. This is as done as possible. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. If he more accurate, but I'd get sanctioned.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Reading is fundamental. You apparently never read the concurring opinions. The opinion by Justices White and Justice Blackmun stated clearly that they believed impeachment to be justiciable - including that very case. Justice Souter also wrote a concurring opinion that impeachment could be justiciable. Go back to grade school.

If there's one thing funnier that internet lawyers, it's misplaced bravado.

You don't understand what you read. That's why you can't quite find a good quote - nothing quite says what you want it to say.

It's ok, you're in good company, most people don't understand this stuff. It takes schooling.

 

[cpwill]

That's kind of unusual for the National Review, isn't it? Or am I mixing them up with someone else?

National Review is Conservatism's premier publication, but, they've always called it straight with Trump.

 

[cpwill]

Trump is an awful human being, he has been for decades.

So it will be a little poetic and fitting seeing him slide into be a pathetic, delusional, lonely(and he will be lonely, once his usefulness is over he will be abandoned, just like he has abandoned so many of his friends and family), shell of a person..

Whatever is going on with him now, dementia or Alzheimer's, or whatever should not be taken lightly. But the way Trump lived his life, the way he treated people, stole from people, welshed on debts, insulted people, conned them, and on and on. There's no way I will ever feel sorry for him..

It would be helpful if he said it in a public forum.

 

[Craig234]

I much prefer Ike and Roosevelt over Reagan.

They were both pretty flawed, but not nearly as much as modern Republicans. Your post implied you were talking about more recent ones.

 

[Napoleon]

If there's one thing funnier that internet lawyers, it's misplaced bravado.

You don't understand what you read. That's why you can't quite find a good quote - nothing quite says what you want it to say.

It's ok, you're in good company, most people don't understand this stuff. It takes schooling.

Nothing makes me laugh more than uneducated internet lawyers who are busted for not knowing what they’re talking about. It’s says exactly what I said it says. Souter:

“One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,' " ante, at 2 (White, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.”

White and Blackmun’s concurrence is all about their standpoint that impeachments are justiciable. Even in their opening paragraph they say, “The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to consider his contention. I find no such prohibition and would therefore reach the merits of the claim.” They go on to explain their interpretation that “sole” refers to the House and Senate operating independently of each other and is not intended to preclude judicial review/oversight.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Nothing makes me laugh more than uneducated internet lawyers who are busted for not knowing what they’re talking about.

I have a JD. How about you?

“One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,' " ante, at 2

Souter is saying that if the Senate failed to procedurally treat it as a trial - if they made a joke of it - the Court should have the power to intervene.

He is not saying that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is justiciable. If Congress decides that eating an onion bagel is a high crime, and conducts a trial, examines witnesses, and deliberates the question of whether or not the President ate an onion bagel, and votes to impeach - then game over. Souter would agree.

 

[Napoleon]

I have a JD. How about you?



Souter is saying that if the Senate failed to procedurally treat it as a trial - if they made a joke of it - the Court should have the power to intervene.

He is not saying that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is justiciable. If Congress decides that eating an onion bagel is a high crime, and conducts a trial, examines witnesses, and deliberates the question of whether or not the President ate an onion bagel, and votes to impeach - then game over. Souter would agree.

On the contrary, he does say that the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is justiciable and gives a specific example, i.e, that being a “bad guy” doesn’t cut the mustard. And why are you ignoring White and Blackmun who found “no such prohibition” on justiciability? Ask for your money back.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

On the contrary, he does say that the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is justiciable

No, he doesn't. That's why you can't come up with the quote you're looking for.

Look at the quote you've posted, so many times already:

One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,'

He's talking about procedure, not merits. The merits aren't the Court's to decide, and he know it.

Maybe there's a law school near you that'll let you audit some Con Law 1 classes.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

And why are you ignoring White and Blackmun?

I'm not. Their argument is procedural as well.

Why haven't you tried to quote them?

 

[I'm Immemorial]

And asking for more! Wonder if he used a magazine with Putin's picture on the cover...

Hahahaha! Bad Dog!

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I would also like to point out, all of this impeachment discussion is just an attempt to deflect from the arguments you already lost, earlier in this thread.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Hahahaha! Bad Dog! View attachment 67336418

Not you.