Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

A distinction misunderstood. But many foreigners here asking are well aware of this by now.

Well, this NY Times article explains it all in detail.  While they go on about presiding officer, they do mention "Judge" in their headline.  If it's good enough for the Times, it's good enough for LuLa.

Trifecta of Roles for Leahy: Witness, Juror and Judge in Trump’s Trial
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/us/politics/patrick-leahy-impeachment-trial.html

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you know, this is a free website in a free country. It's not compulsory to report your ignore settings. Ignore or un-ignore - you can do it at you leisure, once a week or twice a month, nobody has to know about it. It's not like in the old Soviet Union where they could put you in a gulag for telling jokes about Khrushchev or for divulging some other sensitive information. Same thing if one decides to leave the site or later come back, no need to make a big commotion about it. Better to take some pictures instead.

OK.  So I'll start over again and un-ignore Frank.  Clean slate.  After reading so many of the type of posts here, I forgot I was in America. 

[jeremyrh]

The poor foreigner should ignore the text quoted.

As I'm sure you guessed, i did ignore it :-)

[Chris Kern]

So, forgive a poor foreigner's ignorance, but how does this work - the Senate rules that impeachment is constitutional, and McConnell votes to acquit because impeachment is unconstitutional?  Can a juror vote according to his own personal version of the law? Can a murderer walk free if a juror feels that killing people is not actually illegal?

The constitutional role of the Senate in trying impeachments is quite different from the historical role of the House of Lords.  The Constitution of 1787 used terminology borrowed from the common law, but its operation with respect to impeachments is an entirely political process; the senators may consider precedent, but prior votes are not "rulings" in the sense of an authoritative judicial interpretation.  In this case, the majority voted to conduct a trial even though Trump was no longer president (and thus not subject to removal from office), but the individual senators were only bound by that vote to the extent that the trial did proceed.  Those who believed the impeachment provisions of the constitution apply only to office-holders, though on the losing side of the preliminary vote, remained free to acquit on that basis—or at least to use it as a rationale for their votes to acquit—and are not answerable to any external authority except their constituents.

[digitaldog]

Better to take some pictures instead.

I was going to suggest a hobby, you think photography would be a good one to better occupy his time? 🤔

[jeremyrh]

The constitutional role of the Senate in trying impeachments is quite different from the historical role of the House of Lords.  The Constitution of 1787 used terminology borrowed from the common law, but its operation with respect to impeachments is an entirely political process; the senators may consider precedent, but prior votes are not "rulings" in the sense of an authoritative judicial interpretation.  In this case, the majority voted to conduct a trial even though Trump was no longer president (and thus not subject to removal from office), but the individual senators were only bound by that vote to the extent that the trial did proceed.  Those who believed the impeachment provisions of the constitution apply only to office-holders, though on the losing side of the preliminary vote, remained free to acquit on that basis—or at least to use it as a rationale for their votes to acquit—and are not answerable to any external authority except their constituents.

Thanks!!  I leaned something.  Can't say that every day in the Coffee Corner :-)

[Alan Klein]

I was going to suggest a hobby, you think photography would be a good one to better occupy his time? 🤔

I've posted dozens of photos.  Check my Flickr page.  I haven't seen any of yours.  Maybe you need to get out and shoot more often? 🤔

[faberryman]

Presiding officer or judge.  A distinction without a difference.

False fact.

[digitaldog]

Presiding officer or judge.  A distinction without a difference.

A distinction with a difference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Officer_of_the_United_States_Senate
vs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge

[faberryman]

Well, this NY Times article explains it all in detail.  While they go on about presiding officer, they do mention "Judge" in their headline.  If it's good enough for the Times, it's good enough for LuLa.

Nope. It is only good enough for you. Unless of course you want to stipulate that everything appearing in the NYT is true and accurate.

[digitaldog]

I've posted dozens of photos.  Check my Flickr page.  I haven't seen any of yours.  Maybe you need to get out and shoot more often? 🤔

Oh yes, snapshots.
Like finding, then reading facts, and accepting them,your effort to see my work show further laziness:
See the icon below with a red arrow to focus your attention on more facts?
Don't you also post on on this site requiring corrections sans an ignore list? Yes you do.
http://www.photo.net/361342

[jeremyrh]

Alan, you know, this is a free website in a free country. It's not compulsory to report your ignore settings. Ignore or un-ignore - you can do it at you leisure, once a week or twice a month, nobody has to know about it. It's not like in the old Soviet Union where they could put you in a gulag for telling jokes about Khrushchev or for divulging some other sensitive information. Same thing if one decides to leave the site or later come back, no need to make a big commotion about it. Better to take some pictures instead.

If Alan said something in a forest, with no one to hear, would it still be BS?

[digitaldog]

If Alan said something in a forest, with no one to hear, would it still be BS?

And would he return with a photograph made?
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” – Ansel Adams

[faberryman]

OK.  So I'll start over again and un-ignore Frank.  Clean slate.  After reading so many of the type of posts here, I forgot I was in America. 

You are dithering around. Make up your mind. And don't think you are doing me any favors by un-ignoring me.

Would you care to explain your comment about "type of posts" and you "forgot [you] were in America"?

[TechTalk]

McConnell was not in charge of the Senate for the trial. The Democrats were.  So there was a trial because the Democrats voted for it.

The Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, however, it is the Constitution and the rules of the House and Senate that govern impeachment and trials. There was a trial because Democratic and Republican members in both the House and Senate followed the Constitution and the rules in both houses to impeach and proceed to trial.

McConnell is now just another Republican senator who can vote for guilt or for acquittal.  He felt as others did that trying a civilian isn't constitutional.  That only president can be impeached and tried for removal from office.  Since Trump was already a civilian at the time of the trial, the trial is moot.  So McConnell voted for acquittal.

The impeachment trial was clearly not moot. It was decided by a bipartisan majority to be constitutional which is why it proceeded. This was not the first time that the argument has been raised that a former office holder cannot be impeached and that argument has never been sustained. Precedent supports the impeachment of former office holders as does common sense. The notion that the framers placed in the Constitution a provision for disqualification from ever holding public office again—due to egregious conduct while holding public office—as a punishment for impeachment which can be avoided simply by resigning or losing an election is neither reasonable or logical on its face. The use of the word "civilian" is frivolous as no one is impeachable for conduct that is unrelated to holding public office. However, anyone holding public office is impeachable and subject to trial for their actions while in office and that cannot be avoided by simply leaving office thru resignation or any other means. That said, a senator can use any reason they choose to justify their decision to convict or acquit regardless of precedent or rationality. The "jurisdiction to try former office holders is unconstitutional" argument is an artifice to provide a fig leaf of cover for acquittal. No doubt others will use the same excuse, despite the fact that the argument is superficial and defies both precedent and logic.

[Alan Klein]

The Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, however, it is the Constitution and the rules of the House and Senate that govern impeachment and trials. There was a trial because Democratic and Republican members in both the House and Senate followed the Constitution and the rules in both houses to impeach and proceed to trial.

The impeachment trial was clearly not moot. It was decided by a bipartisan majority to be constitutional which is why it proceeded. This was not the first time that the argument has been raised that a former office holder cannot be impeached and that argument has never been sustained. Precedent supports the impeachment of former office holders as does common sense. The notion that the framers placed in the Constitution a provision for disqualification from ever holding public office again—due to egregious conduct while holding public office—as a punishment for impeachment which can be avoided simply by resigning or losing an election is neither reasonable or logical on its face. The use of the word "civilian" is frivolous as no one is impeachable for conduct that is unrelated to holding public office. However, anyone holding public office is impeachable and subject to trial for their actions while in office and that cannot be avoided by simply leaving office thru resignation or any other means. That said, a senator can use any reason they choose to justify their decision to convict or acquit regardless of precedent or rationality. The "jurisdiction to try former office holders is unconstitutional" argument is an artifice to provide a fig leaf of cover for acquittal. No doubt others will use the same excuse, despite the fact that the argument is superficial and defies both precedent and logic.

Senator McConnell disagrees with your analysis. Additionally, the constitution says removal from office AND punishment not OR. If a defendent dies before a trial, there is no trial.  In any case, how could senators vote to remove a president from office when he is no longer in office?  When Nixon resigned, it mooted the need for impeaching him and throwing him out of office.  The fact the chief Justice refused to sit as the judge, is another indicator of the weakness of your argument. 

Look, this thing could be argued either way.  It would have to be tested in the Supreme COurt to get a final ruling and understanding and that's not going to happen now.

[TechTalk]

What would have been interesting is if the Senate did find Trump guilty, and ruled that he could no longer run for president or another federal office. Then there would have been another trial where Trump would have sued claiming his trial unconstitutional.  The whole case would have gone to the Supreme Court.  They would determine the Constitutionality of the whole process.

The Supreme Court has no role to play in determining impeachment processes nor the constitutionality of the procedures or process adopted by the House and Senate. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial process and is left to the political branch alone to determine procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as recently as 1993 in a unanimous decision, is that the Supreme Court has no role and cannot intervene or rule on the political process of impeachment because the Constitution gives "sole power" of impeachment and trial to Congress. It is a nonjusticiable process that is solely determined by the Congress.

[faberryman]

Senator McConnell disagrees with your analysis.

So what.

Additionally, the constitution says removal from office AND punishment not OR.

So what.

If a defendent dies before a trial, there is no trial. 

Trump's not dead.

In any case, how could senators vote to remove a president from office when he is no longer in office?

They wouldn't. They would vote to bar him from holding office.

When Nixon resigned, it mooted the need for impeaching him and throwing him out of office.

Nope. See above.

The fact the chief Justice refused to sit as the judge, is another indicator of the weakness of your argument.

Nope. 

Look, this thing could be argued either way.

Not convincingly.

It would have to be tested in the Supreme Court to get a final ruling and understanding and that's not going to happen now.

Nope.

[Robert Roaldi]

...  When Nixon resigned, it mooted the need for impeaching him and throwing him out of office.  ...

Nixon was pre-emptively pardoned by Ford.

[Alan Klein]

The Supreme Court has no role to play in determining impeachment processes nor the constitutionality of the procedures or process adopted by the House and Senate. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial process and is left to the political branch alone to determine procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as recently as 1993 in a unanimous decision, is that the Supreme Court has no role and cannot intervene or rule on the political process of impeachment because the Constitution gives "sole power" of impeachment and trial to Congress. It is a nonjusticiable process that is solely determined by the Congress.

It's not the process that could be unconstitutional but rather the impeachment itself.  The trial is supposed to be for a sitting president.  That's why the Chief Justice refused to sit at this impeachment but sat for Trump's first.  So the Senate tried a civilian and then would prevent him from running for federal political office. 

Trump's lawsuit in such as situation would be that it's unconstitutional for the Senate to impeach a civilian and taking away his constitutional right to run for office. It had no jurisdiction over him once he left office.  If he violated some Federal law about insurrection, then he should be tried in an actual court of law, not the Senate.

The senate may also be violating another constitutional section called a Bill of Attainder, where the senate by its act takes away the right of an individual without a trial.  Since the impeachment is not a trial as we know it but a political hearing of sorts, the Supreme Court might rule this a Bill of Attainder.  Maybe one of our legal scholars can explain Bills of Attainder better.