SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

[Swordsmyth]

Separation of Powers. Impeachment is something that the Court does not have the power to review or overturn.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/

After petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against him and presented them to the Senate. Following proceedings pursuant to Senate Rule XI-which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and to report that evidence to the full Senate the Senate voted to convict Nixon, and the presiding officer entered judgment removing him from his judgeship. He then commenced the present suit for a declaratory judgment and reinstatement of his judicial salary and privileges, arguing that, because Senate Rule XI prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings, it violates the first sentence of the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, which provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The District Court held that his claim was nonjusticiable, i. e., involved a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
​

Those wonderful checks and balances that the founders put in the constitution that Trump is relying on for immunity allow a president to be removed for any reason and the courts do not have the right to overturn that.

Now the flip side is getting a 2/3rds majority in the U.S. Senate is hard as hell! That's what's different than a "Prime Minister" who can be ousted by a simple majority vote. The Republicans had a simple majority in the Senate when they went after Clinton. The Democrats had a simple majority when they went after Trump the second time. But neither were close to a 2/3rds majority.

False.
The Constitution does not say he may be impeached for ANY reason, it gives a specific list of reasons.
Courts may not be able to review the process, that's all the case you cited says, but they most certainly can review whether the charge was a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
And the court just said Congress may not criminalize the legitimate use of Core Presidential powers.

Claiming impeachment for any or no reason is grossly unconstitutional, as is claiming that Congress may alter a President's core powers with mere legislation rather than a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc4_RFeKaz4

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. But they didn't rule that he couldn't be impeached! You simply have no freaking idea what you're talking about. The Courts do not have the right to overturn an impeachment!

They ruled that legitimate use of his core powers could not be criminalized and the Constitution requires crimes for impeachment.

 

[jmdrake]

False.
The Constitution does not say he may be impeached for ANY reason, it gives a specific list of reasons.
Courts may not be able to review the process, that's all the case you cited says, but they most certainly can review whether the charge was a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
And the court just said Congress may not criminalize the legitimate use of Core Presidential powers.

Claiming impeachment for any or no reason is grossly unconstitutional, as is claiming that Congress may alter a President's core powers with mere legislation rather than a Constitutional Amendment.

Bollocks. The constitution says that the Senate has full authority on impeachment. You can tell that lie all you want, but even this opinion that you're relying on upholds that impeachment is a political process. But tell me this. Which court would you go to in order to challenge an impeachment since you erroneously think it can be challenged?

 

[jmdrake]

They ruled that legitimate use of his core powers could not be criminalized and the Constitution requires crimes for impeachment.

And they also upheld that impeachment is a political process, not s judicial one. So which court would you go to in order to try to judicially overturn an impeachment? Put up or shut up.

Edit: And you do understand, don't you, that this ruling leaves the door open for the current criminal prosecutions against Trump?

 

[CaptUSA]

Bollocks. The constitution says that the Senate has full authority on impeachment. You can tell that lie all you want, but even this opinion that you're relying on upholds that impeachment is a political process. But tell me this. Which court would you go to in order to challenge an impeachment since you erroneously think it can be challenged?

Lol - you're wasting your efforts. SS is cum drunk on trump spunk. His brain doesn't operate fully.

 

[jmdrake]

They ruled that legitimate use of his core powers could not be criminalized and the Constitution requires crimes for impeachment.

Nope. All they ruled is that he couldn't be criminally prosecuted but they didn't rule that those things weren't a crime. One can be impeached without being criminally prosecuted. It's up to the Senate. Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing someone congress said couldn't be fired and he came a few votes short of being removed by the Senate. In the Senate had removed him he would have had nor recourse because, as the Supreme court has already ruled the Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to overrule the Senate on impeachment. You're just being a broken record of ignorance.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Bollocks. The constitution says that the Senate has full authority on impeachment. You can tell that lie all you want, but even this opinion that you're relying on upholds that impeachment is a political process. But tell me this. Which court would you go to in order to challenge an impeachment since you erroneously think it can be challenged?

The Constitution says the Senate has full authority to impeach FOR High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It specifically is not for any or no reason.

And you would immediately go to SCOTUS to contest an impeachment without a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
Failing that it would be time for a coup.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Edit: And you do understand, don't you, that this ruling leaves the door open for the current criminal prosecutions against Trump?

Not for most of them.

Only the ones that claim he committed crimes that were not official acts or that claim they can show a non-core official act was criminal, and the latter are required to prove it was non-core and criminal before proceeding to try the case.

They are all dead, even the New York garbage is in limbo because they used evidence the ruling says they are not allowed to use.
(In addition to the total illegality and unconstitutionality of the case from all other angles)

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nope. All they ruled is that he couldn't be criminally prosecuted but they didn't rule that those things weren't a crime. One can be impeached without being criminally prosecuted. It's up to the Senate. Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing someone congress said couldn't be fired and he came a few votes short of being removed by the Senate. In the Senate had removed him he would have had nor recourse because, as the Supreme court has already ruled the Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to overrule the Senate on impeachment. You're just being a broken record of ignorance.

You are a broken record of Constitution shreddding.
If the Constitution wanted Congress to be able to impeach for any or no reason it would say so instead of specifying what crimes he may be impeached for.
SCOTUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality, and if the Congress violates the Constitution by impeaching for reasons not specified in it then SCOTUS can overrule them.

 

[jmdrake]

The Constitution says the Senate has full authority to impeach FOR High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It specifically is not for any or no reason.

And you would immediately go to SCOTUS to contest an impeachment without a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
Failing that it would be time for a coup.

Not for most of them.

Only the ones that claim he committed crimes that were not official acts or that claim they can show a non-core official act was criminal, and the latter are required to prove it was non-core and criminal before proceeding to try the case.

They are all dead, even the New York garbage is in limbo because they used evidence the ruling says they are not allowed to use.
(In addition to the total illegality and unconstitutionality of the case from all other angles)

You are a broken record of Constitution shreddding.
If the Constitution wanted Congress to be able to impeach for any or no reason it would say so instead of specifying what crimes he may be impeached for.
SCOTUS is the arbiter of Constitutionality, and if the Congress violates the Constitution by impeaching for reasons not specified in it then SCOTUS can overrule them.

Wrong. You're just being willfully ignorant and ignoring the well thought out separation of powers built into the constitution. It's really simply. The fact that the president cannot be held criminally liable for crimes under certain circumstances does not magically make those crimes not crimes. He can be impeached for those crimes even though he cannot be imprisoned for those crimes. If the Senate votes to remove him that it. No one has ever in the history of the United States successfully challenged a Senate vote to remove someone because such a vote cannot be challenged! Your argument goes against the constitution. You can lie over and over again and keep saying the same like but you cannot articulate HOW you would enforce your lie! SCOTUS has already ruled they have NO RIGHT to adjudicate the Senates decision! You dishonestly ignore the question what court would you go to in order to try to advance your argument when SCOTUS has already declared they would not hear such a case? If President Biden decided to drone strike Donald Trump right fvcking now Biden could not be held criminally liable but Biden could be impeached and removed over that! I know that. You know that. Everybody knows that.

 

[jmdrake]

Lol - you're wasting your efforts. SS is cum drunk on trump spunk. His brain doesn't operate fully.

You are of course right. But it's interesting to see how far [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION] will go in advancing an unconstitutional and stupid argument. Under his point of view, Biden could declare Trump and enemy of the state, assassinate him, round all of his supporters and put them in death camps, and he couldn't be removed from office for doing that.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are of course right. But it's interesting to see how far @Swordsmyth will go in advancing an unconstitutional and stupid argument. Under his point of view, Biden could declare Trump and enemy of the state, assassinate him, round all of his supporters and put them in death camps, and he couldn't be removed from office for doing that.

Utternonsense.
That would neither be a legitimate use of a core power nor a noncriminal use of official acts.
There would be no absolute immunity, and the presumptive immunity would shatter immediately as soon as someone took it to court/impeachment.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Wrong. You're just being willfully ignorant and ignoring the well thought out separation of powers built into the constitution.

Projection.

It's really simply. The fact that the president cannot be held criminally liable for crimes under certain circumstances does not magically make those crimes not crimes. He can be impeached for those crimes even though he cannot be imprisoned for those crimes.

They specifically ruled that it is unconstitutional for Congress to make legitimate uses of core powers crimes, that would be changing the Constitution without an Amendment.
So what we are talking about are by definition not crimes, no matter what Congress says about them.

If the Senate votes to remove him that it. No one has ever in the history of the United States successfully challenged a Senate vote to remove someone because such a vote cannot be challenged!

Bunk.
The Constitution is very specific about what impeachment can be based on.
We have had hardly any Presidential impeachments in our history, and all of them alleged High Crimes and Misdemeanors, none of them have convicted and removed.
So the concept of impeaching without a crime and successfully convicting and removing has never been tested, that means there is no precedent and we must look at the law/Constitution itself (always the case but you lawyers do love to rely on bad precedent when you can), the Constitution authorizes impeachment ONLY for crimes.
SCOTUS would be perfectly correct and within its powers to rule that an impeachment without a crime is null and void.

Your argument goes against the constitution. You can lie over and over again and keep saying the same like but you cannot articulate HOW you would enforce your lie! SCOTUS has already ruled they have NO RIGHT to adjudicate the Senates decision! You dishonestly ignore the question what court would you go to in order to try to advance your argument when SCOTUS has already declared they would not hear such a case? If President Biden decided to drone strike Donald Trump right fvcking now Biden could not be held criminally liable but Biden could be impeached and removed over that! I know that. You know that. Everybody knows that.

You are the one lying and violating the Constitution.
SCOTUS ruled they can't intervene in the procedure used in impeachment, there is no precedent for impeachment where no crime is alleged.
I already told you it would go to SCOTUS, and the only correct ruling they could render is that the Constitution does not allow impeachment for noncrimes.

And a drone strike an innocent citizen without due process on American soil is not a core power that has absolute immunity, nor would it survive presumptive immunity for official acts since it would be blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.
Biden could be impeached, convicted, removed and prosecuted when out of office whether he was impeached and removed or not.

You either don't understand the judgement, the Constitution, or the law at all, or you are deliberately lying.

 

[jmdrake]

Utternonsense.
That would neither be a legitimate use of a core power nor a noncriminal use of official acts.
There would be no absolute immunity, and the presumptive immunity would shatter immediately as soon as someone took it to court/impeachment.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740

Facts of the case

Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.

Question
Is Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause -- justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?

Conclusion
Sort: by seniority by ideology
UNANIMOUS DECISION
MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
Byron R. White
White
Harry A. Blackmun
Blackmun
William H. Rehnquist
Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor
Antonin Scalia
Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
Kennedy
David H. Souter
Souter
Clarence Thomas
Thomas

No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."
​

Read ^that! A UNANIMOUS SCOTUS INCLUDING CLARENCE THOMAS AND ANTONIN SCALIA declared that there is NO RIGHT under the constitution to QUESTION whether a Senate impeachment is unconstitutional! That was a 9-0 decision! There is no freaking way that an impeachment can be "took to court" as you falsely claim!

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740

Facts of the case

Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.

Question
Is Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause -- justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?

Conclusion
Sort: by seniority by ideology
UNANIMOUS DECISION
MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
Byron R. White
White
Harry A. Blackmun
Blackmun
William H. Rehnquist
Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor
Antonin Scalia
Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
Kennedy
David H. Souter
Souter
Clarence Thomas
Thomas

No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."
​

Read ^that! A UNANIMOUS SCOTUS INCLUDING CLARENCE THOMAS AND ANTONIN SCALIA declared that there is NO RIGHT under the constitution to QUESTION whether a Senate impeachment is unconstitutional! That was a 9-0 decision! There is no freaking way that an impeachment can be "took to court" as you falsely claim!

Read it yourself.
The process used for impeachment was nonjusticiable.
An impeachment without one of the Constitutionally specified impeachable charges would not be covered by that ruling.
That case had a Constitutionally applicable criminal charge.

 

[jmdrake]

Read it yourself.
The process used for impeachment was nonjusticiable.
An impeachment without one of the Constitutionally specified impeachable charges would not be covered by that ruling.
That case had a Constitutionally applicable criminal charge.

I have read it. And unlike you I understand it. (I think you understand it but you're just lying). SCOTUS does not have the right to rule on the constitutionality of an impeachment period. End of story. Nobody can "take it to court" as you falsely claimed.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I have read it. And unlike you I understand it. (I think you understand it but you're just lying). SCOTUS does not have the right to rule on the constitutionality of an impeachment period. End of story. Nobody can "take it to court" as you falsely claimed.

You are the worst lawyer I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
You misunderstand the Constitution, the law, and the rulings, or you are willing to just gaslight about them in pursuit of your biases.

I understand it, you don't or pretend not to.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

OMG! If Trump is elected, he will nuke Portland and Seattle! He has full immunity according to the Supreme Court! It will be the end of Democracy!

 

[jmdrake]

You are the worst lawyer I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
You misunderstand the Constitution, the law, and the rulings, or you are willing to just gaslight about them in pursuit of your biases.

I understand it, you don't or pretend not to.

You're lying. You are purposefully ignoring the fact that even Clarence Thomas agrees with me that the constitutionality of the Senates decision to remove a president through impeachment cannot be challenged in court.