Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[Pavlov]

And where does it say that it is not subject to judicial review?

Right here:

Pe ioner Walter L. Nixon, Jr., asks this Court to decide whether Senate Rule XI, which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an individual who has been impeached and to report that evidence to the full Senate, violates the Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. That Clause provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." But before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is "justiciable," that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.

Nixon v. United States, et.al. (1993)


The SCOTUS decision was based on this clause of the US Cons ution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons u...n-3/clause-6–7


All that says the US Senate has the last word on impeachments.


Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.

[spurraider21]

And where does it say that it is not subject to judicial review?

a) the cons ution states that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment
b) it would defeat checks and balances to allow SCOTUS to review impeachments, because impeachment is the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice in the first place
c) the supreme court has previously held that impeachments are not subject to review https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1959127

[spurraider21]

ah, pavlov beat me to the nixon vs us ruling

[spurraider21]

Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.

talking to a guy who thinks that trump has unilateral authority to fire supreme court justices whenever he pleases

[Pavlov]

talking to a guy who thinks that trump has unilateral authority to fire supreme court justices whenever he pleases

Eh, I just want to see how he tries to change the subject from proving his claim.

Let's watch.

[Pavlov]

[Spurtacular]

Right here:



Nixon v. United States, et.al. (1993)


The SCOTUS decision was based on this clause of the US Cons ution:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons u...n-3/clause-6–7


All that says the US Senate has the last word on impeachments.


Let's see the laws and court decisions that back up your claim.

The SC would not be trying the impeachment, dip . They can rule on the cons utionality of any impeachment, however.

[Spurtacular]

a) the cons ution states that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment
b) it would defeat checks and balances to allow SCOTUS to review impeachments, because impeachment is the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice in the first place
c) the supreme court has previously held that impeachments are not subject to review https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1959127

Again, I'm not debating who has the power of impeachment. The Cons ution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. If they were to impeach over an offense that is uncons utional, they'd not only have the power to strike it down, but the duty to do so.

That case you and your chumpian overlord quote is a a ruling on Senatorial procedure. It's laughable that you interpret that as meaning that they cannot rule on any impeachment case.

[Spurtacular]

[spurraider21]

Again, I'm not debating who has the power of impeachment. The Cons ution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. If they were to impeach over an offense that is uncons utional, they'd not only have the power to strike it down, but the duty to do so.

That case you and your chumpian overlord quote is a a ruling on Senatorial procedure. It's laughable that you interpret that as meaning that they cannot rule on any impeachment case.

SCOTUS specifically said they cannot review impeachments in that case

[boutons_deux]

"The Cons ution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. "

You Lie

Congress can impeach/convict for any damn thing it wants. "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not required

[Spurtacular]

SCOTUS specifically said they cannot review impeachments in that case

They said they cannot review that particular procedural matter b/c it was not uncons utional.

Lite pretending that is some sort of sweeping case on impeachment rulings.

[Spurtacular]

"The Cons ution is clear about what the impeachable offense are. "

You Lie

Congress can impeach/convict for any damn thing it wants. "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not required

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yup. Required.

[spurraider21]

They said they cannot review that particular procedural matter b/c it was not uncons utional.

Lite pretending that is some sort of sweeping case on impeachment rulings.

i'm sorry the cons ution and the case law don't say what you wanted it to say

[boutons_deux]

[Spurtacular]

i'm sorry the cons ution and the case law don't say what you wanted it to say

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a ty lawyer.

[Spurtacular]

**

[Blake]

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a ty lawyer.

You're a ing idiot

[Pavlov]

The SC would not be trying the impeachment, dip . They can rule on the cons utionality of any impeachment, however.

No. The SCOTUS decision I posted completely on you.

Post anything that supports your claim.

Any court case.

Any law.

[Pavlov]

The case law does not say SC can never rule on a case involving impeachment. You're a ty lawyer.

That's exactly what it says, derp.

Did you even read my post?

[Spurtacular]

You're a ing idiot

You're not allowed to have an opinion. Remember, cuck?

[Spurtacular]

No. The SCOTUS decision I posted completely on you.

That's exactly what it says, derp.

Did you even read my post?

Psychopav truth.

[Blake]

You're not allowed to have an opinion. Remember, cuck?

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact you're an illiterate ing re . You this place up with your stupidity.

[Pavlov]

Psychopav truth.

OK, derp -- still waiting on your laws and court precedents that support your claim.

Let's see them.

[Spurtacular]

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact you're an illiterate ing re . You this place up with your stupidity.

It's an opinion; and you're not authorized to have one.