Is there an obligation for the judge to respond before the week is up?
1 Like
Any Rule the Senate makes, the Senate can change.
1 Like
thanks!
hereâs the thingâŚ
SCOTUS could overturn this without having much real impact on the law.
For instance, SCOTUS could rule that Congress must be clear about its legislative intent when it issues subpoenas, and that the committee failed to do that. Its not a big deal, as far as Congressâ power is concerned â it just means adding a sentence to future subpoenas, and amending any current ones.
But while having little effect on the larger issues of the separations of powers doctrine , it would create massive delays in every aspect of this case, and all the other Trump related subpoena cases.
I mean, if I was Brett Kavanaugh, thatâs what I would do here. No need to rewrite the constitution when you can scribble in the margins and accomplish the same goals.
1 Like
Maybe not. Both courts may pass and let the ruling stand if only to avoid getting entangled in a clear reading of âshallâ and avoid even more grief. I do wonder just how many other statues, laws, etc. use the same shall language and therefore could open up some real cans of worms!
1 Like
youâre talking about an entirely different thing (its not even a case yet) â the income tax stuff.
It strikes me that Methaâs opinion was extremely dismissive of Consovoyâs argument and assumed premise for the suit. Reading between the lines it is as if the Judge is saying that the plaintiff did not make an actual legal argument citing such things as facts or laws and is instead just banging on the table. And, Trumpâs response explaining the setback as being the the outcome he would expect from an Obama judge is not going to play well even with the non-Obama judges.
I will bet that Jones Day is secretly relieved that they got fired by the President⌠I hope that Consovoy got their fees up front along with some kind of guarantee to be compensated in the event of sanctions for frivolous suits.
7 Likes
Liked x millions. It is getting to the point where no matter how good the news is for our side all you see here are naysayers and fear mongers. I hate to admit it but too many on our side are cowards. No wonder the RW calls us snowflakes.
Apropos this: there are bots, trolls, and hair-on-fire chaos-makers all over the internets, originating both beyond and within our borders, and not-absent from Hive threads. Informed skepticism and a refusal to espouse panic are called for.
5 Likes
More like fatalists. Folks are also forgetting about the N.Y. state AG. Itâs possible that NY can makes âthe first strike.â against Trump and trumpism.
2 Likes
Thatâs right in that they knew they couldnât make a true legal case and instead just threw crap at the wall with the sole intent to delay.
Jones is happy for sure. But I disagree and hope Consovoy gets burned really bad by Trump for non-payment. Schadenfreude to the extreme!
Trump is the poster child for Chaos Monkey.
1 Like
At this point I assume any new Trump attorneys are requiring signed undated pardons.
3 Likes
Not a millennial myself, although Iâm only a few years to the left of that line. Young adults not voting in large numbers is not something unique to their generation. It looks like mine (X) was quite a bit worse irt % of us who voted. Looks like the steep decline started in the early 70s (Boomers)⌠so we were all slackers (across the entire generation, not individually).
1 Like
Whether due process applies was a central question in Nixon. The answer is no. It is entirely a âpolitical questionâ and not a criminal trial/matter.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3263&context=dlj
Over on Marcie Wheelerâs site someone just reported that the appeal judge is going to be (drum roll please) a certain Merrick Garland.
3 Likes
weâll have to agree to disagree, because my reading of the case was not a fifth amendment âdue processâ claim as such.
Nixon argued that the wording of the impeachment trial clause (âThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachmentsâ) required that the entire senate be convened to hear all the evidence presented â i.e that âThe Senateâ was not âa Senate Committeeâ and that committee transcripts were insufficient.
It should be noted that the majority opinion makes no mention of âdue processâ (although it does appear in Justice Whiteâs concurring opinion*) or the âFifth Amendment.â I find it difficult to believe that if the Supreme Court had considered the applicability of the due process clause of the fifth amendment to this case, it would have failed to mention either.
*an opinion that argues against the proposition that the courts have no role, to wit âWere the Senate, for example, to adopt the practice of automatically entering a judgment of conviction whenever articles of impeachment were delivered from the House, it is quite clear that the Senate will have failed to âtryâ impeachments.â
To Merrick Garlandâs Court, no less!! Go get, Merrick!
This is why itâs very frustrating to talk to laypeople who think theyâve got the same understanding as a lawyer. Judge Nixon claimed in part that he was denied due process by the Senate holding a special committee to do its fact finding and by other aspects of the impeachment process. In any event, the CLEAR implication of the case is that no judicial review means 5th Amendment due process is not implicated. Thereâs literally no way, without judicial review, to find that it is. Due process would mean that there is an available route for redress if it is denied WHEN DUE. There is no available route for redress. Ergo, it cannot be due.
ETA: Checking on myself, it was HASTINGS, not Nixon, I was remembering who argued on 5th Amendment grounds, i.e., that an impeachment before a committee denied his due process rights to an impeachment before the full Senate. In any event, the cases are peas in a pod. The article I linked provides a good discussion of the issue and, I think, shows why the question both still exists, but for all practical purposes is already answeredâŚif not answers itself. Even if a Judge, for example, has an entitlement or right to his lifetime tenure that could be argued to fall under the 5th Amendment because it is based on federal law, that right is further DEFINED AND BOUNDED by the impeachment proceedings laid out in the Constitution, meaning that if impeachment proceedings are invoked and followed, they determine those rights. Impeachment not being subject to judicial review, means that it is entirely up to Congress, i.e., a âpolitical questionâ, how that process plays out, what standards it applies, etc. It is entirely within their discretion and nothing in the enactment of the 5th Amendment after the Impeachment Trial Clause suggests there was any intent to limit or control that discretion.
1 Like
except that there is zero evidence in the opinion (or the concurrences) that Nixon ever actually made a 5th amendment âdue processâ claim. As Iâve already noted, the words âdue processâ are not found in the majority opinion. Do you have a link to any of Nixonâs filings in which he refers to his âdue processâ rights under the 5th amendment, as opposed to his claim that his impeachment should be overturned because a Senate Rule violated the Impeachment clause itself?
ETA â the above was written before I saw your edit. I guess Iâll now go look at the Hastings opinion⌠