Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:21 PM Jun 2019

Trump is telling aides he will 'sue' Democrats if they pursue impeachment: report

I do not remember covering this in Con Law back when I was in law school




Some legal scholars, Parker notes, are asserting that the idea of a U.S. president suing Congress for trying to impeach him is ludicrous. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, denounced Trump’s threat as “idiocy” on Twitter and posted, “Not even a SCOTUS filled with Trump appointees would get in the way of the House or Senate.”

However, attorney and Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz (who is also a Harvard Law School professor) has asserted that should Democrats pursue impeachment, the U.S. Supreme Court could intervene if the justices believed that Congress hadn’t acted constitutionally.

Dershowitz has lost it and only an idiot like trump would try this lawsuit
54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump is telling aides he will 'sue' Democrats if they pursue impeachment: report (Original Post) Gothmog Jun 2019 OP
Hillary should sue him for election theft DUgosh Jun 2019 #1
Thread win. CrispyQ Jun 2019 #9
THANK YOU !!! uponit7771 Jun 2019 #18
Absolutely DownriverDem Jun 2019 #37
And then some malaise Jun 2019 #45
Gotta high five that response! Generic Other Jun 2019 #47
Absolutely! Stargazer09 Jun 2019 #51
Standard tactics and threats from Trump gratuitous Jun 2019 #2
Right, hes been suing all his sorry life to further his corruption. brush Jun 2019 #44
Dersh-bag did say something along these idiotic lines, but Trump has, of course, expanded it beyond hlthe2b Jun 2019 #3
tribe has far more faith in the justices than i do rampartc Jun 2019 #4
wow if hes resorting to this, then his bag of distractions is pretty slim pickins.... samnsara Jun 2019 #5
Reopen the Epstein trial watoos Jun 2019 #6
DICKtator Donnie....Cry baby!!! ProudMNDemocrat Jun 2019 #7
Another day, another dangling of a shiny object in the faces of deplorables. KY_EnviroGuy Jun 2019 #8
"WHERE'S MY Leghorn21 Jun 2019 #10
He also thinks China and Mexico will pay his tariffs. Ligyron Jun 2019 #11
Good luck with that. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #12
I LOVE reading your posts! StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #26
Thank you! The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #42
(although I'd personally enjoy the spectacle) malaise Jun 2019 #46
Did they cover this concept in your law school? Gothmog Jun 2019 #49
It doesn't ring any bells for me, either. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #54
America should sue Trump for emotional distress and mental anguish sop Jun 2019 #13
Any fourth grader understands think4yourself Jun 2019 #14
He will probably sue all Americans when we vote him out of office. CatMor Jun 2019 #15
This is Trump's typical reaction peggysue2 Jun 2019 #16
That's because (unlike Trump's lawyers) COLGATE4 Jun 2019 #17
Or the Trump University School of Law. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #32
Is Dershowitz trying to run up billable hours? NewJeffCT Jun 2019 #19
trump does not pay which is why he has such weak lawyers working for him Gothmog Jun 2019 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author struggle4progress Jun 2019 #20
Dershowitz's argument is pure bullshit StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #21
We are in complete agreement on this Gothmog Jun 2019 #23
Yes, at BEST they are dicta. But they don't even apply to impeachment in the House StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #25
So how does this square with the Chief Justice Beausoleil Jun 2019 #31
It would be up to the full court to decide whether to take the case and it's highly unlikely StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #33
Love the last comment, PRETZEL Jun 2019 #35
Great question StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #40
The Chief Justice's role in a Senate impeachment trial The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #34
Any appeal would still imply that the Beausoleil Jun 2019 #38
This does not surprise me.... dawnie51 Jun 2019 #22
The irony is that now that he's become the most powerful man on earth, he now has less power to use StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #27
Good point and I think a very valid one, and one that rump is discovering that threatening... SWBTATTReg Jun 2019 #28
Breaking out the 'ol I'll sue! saw. What a pathetic bag of tricks he carries JDC Jun 2019 #29
I think this idiocy shows how frightened he is. No lawyer of any repute would file such an action. Shrike47 Jun 2019 #30
But he does get disreputable lawyers to work for him. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #43
That's a given. He sues over everything. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2019 #36
Forthcoming response should be: sprinkleeninow Jun 2019 #39
He'll file it in Federal District Court in Moscow, Russia rurallib Jun 2019 #41
Yeah just like he was going to appeal impeachment to the Supreme Court Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2019 #48
I was on the Clinton Victory Counsel team and we look at a ton of lawsuits Gothmog Jun 2019 #50
He's not guilty, not at all liberal N proud Jun 2019 #52
FUCK HIM...let him sue. spanone Jun 2019 #53

DownriverDem

(6,206 posts)
37. Absolutely
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:14 PM
Jun 2019

trump would have sued if HRC was declared the winner. trump is so ignorant. trump cannot sue over impeachment. I am so tired of this nightmare.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
2. Standard tactics and threats from Trump
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:25 PM
Jun 2019

Trying to run the presidency like he ran his businesses. Remember that one business where he paid out $25 million to settle a lawsuit in December 2016? Trump Looniversity or some such?

I guess he can threaten lawsuits with relative impunity, since he wouldn't be liable for attorney's fees for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

brush

(53,475 posts)
44. Right, hes been suing all his sorry life to further his corruption.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:02 PM
Jun 2019

He's always been able to outlast vendors and other rip-off victims with his on-retainer lawyers. Please of please try it, trump.

I would say you'd embarrass yourself but you don't even know how to get embarrasse.

hlthe2b

(101,730 posts)
3. Dersh-bag did say something along these idiotic lines, but Trump has, of course, expanded it beyond
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:26 PM
Jun 2019

any belief.

The fact is, there is no way the four sane justices (and quite likely Roberts) would go along with the court getting involved in this manner. And even if they had five justices that were willing to sell out the SCOTUS for all time, I'd bet the four sane ones would WALK OUT.

rampartc

(5,265 posts)
4. tribe has far more faith in the justices than i do
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:26 PM
Jun 2019

at the very least the suit would take an eternity to get to the supremes.

samnsara

(17,570 posts)
5. wow if hes resorting to this, then his bag of distractions is pretty slim pickins....
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:27 PM
Jun 2019

...hes pert near done for.

ProudMNDemocrat

(16,485 posts)
7. DICKtator Donnie....Cry baby!!!
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:34 PM
Jun 2019

This is rich.

Trump is basically saying Congress is no longer a co-Equal Branch of Government.

Chalk another win in the Democratic Party column. They have the US Constitution on their side. What is Trump going to do? Suspend the Constitution? Not even the Supreme Court will let him get away with this one.

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,483 posts)
8. Another day, another dangling of a shiny object in the faces of deplorables.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:34 PM
Jun 2019

Why the hell does this bullshit gain press coverage every time?

The way tRump rolls, he probably tells his aides he'll sue McDonald's over an under-cooked burger.....

Ligyron

(7,592 posts)
11. He also thinks China and Mexico will pay his tariffs.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:40 PM
Jun 2019

Man is totally clueless.

This show is for his idiotic base to show how he's "winning".

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
12. Good luck with that.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:41 PM
Jun 2019

The key is "if Congress hadn't acted constitutionally." If, however, it does - which it would and will - the courts are out of it altogether. The Constitution hands the entire power of impeachment over to Congress, so unless Congress totally jumps the rails and does something off the wall like bypass the entire process and instead hire Blackwater to capture Trump and send him to Gitmo - in which case maybe a writ of prohibition might be in order (although I'd personally enjoy the spectacle) - suing Congress to stop impeachment is quite literally a non-starter. I don't know what Dershowitz is smoking these days, or why at his age and with his former reputation he'd whore himself out to the likes of Trump, but he really needs a long rest.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
49. Did they cover this concept in your law school?
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:44 PM
Jun 2019

I admit that I still have my copy of Tribe (Second edition if you want to date when I went to law school). The concept that one can sue for impeachment is just plain crazy

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
54. It doesn't ring any bells for me, either.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:08 PM
Jun 2019

I think I used Tribe's first edition (I'm that old) but I don't think suing for impeachment was in that one, or in any later editions.

sop

(9,946 posts)
13. America should sue Trump for emotional distress and mental anguish
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:42 PM
Jun 2019

We have all experienced significant injuries as the result of Trump's intentional and negligent actions. A class action lawsuit is the only remedy.

think4yourself

(837 posts)
14. Any fourth grader understands
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:45 PM
Jun 2019

this government better than him. It’s not even a joke anymore. And putting our faith into questionable election systems that have been a clusterfuck since 2001 is also no longer viable.
We are well and truly screwn.

peggysue2

(10,811 posts)
16. This is Trump's typical reaction
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 01:47 PM
Jun 2019

Sue anyone and everything that criticizes, disagrees or finds him personally repellant.

Bring it on, Babyfingers!

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
21. Dershowitz's argument is pure bullshit
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:14 PM
Jun 2019

And the deceptive smoke and mirrors "justification" he used proves he knows that.

The Professor Dershowitz of days gone by would have flunked a law student who used such raggedy reasoning on one of his law school exams. I miss that guy.

First, he suggests that Justices Breyer and Souter said that a president can appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court, quoting them supposedly making this argument as if it this claim has some legal merit.

However, not only do neither of the quotes he relies upon have any binding legal authority, they both concern conviction and removal by the Senate, not impeachment. (Dershowitz, unsurprisingly, muddled his argument and conveniently edited Justice Souter's quote, probably in order to confuse the issue). Moreover, he conveniently edits one of the quotes to better suit his purpose.

"Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way: “Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed his predecessor: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”


Justice White's quote came in a footnote to his concurrence in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), so it has no legal significance or precedential value. Neither does Justice's Souter's comment, which he made in his concurrence in Nixon v. U.S. (1993) (a different Nixon, an impeached judge, not Richard). His full quote is: "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,' " 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."

Neither of these comments have the force of law and neither of these Justices is currently on the Supreme Court (White is deceased, Souter is retired). But more important, these comments refer not to impeachment, but to trial and conviction, In this instance, it is very unlikely that the Republican Senate would convict Trump at all, much less do so on a buggaboo.

Trump didn't threaten to appeal conviction and removal. He said he would appeal impeachment. Nothing in Dershowitz's tortured and misleading argument supports his claim that an impeachment can be appealed - (he also doesn't offer any valid legal basis for claiming a conviction and removal can be appealed, either - footnotes in concurrences aren't law).

In other words, once again, Dershowitz is full of shit.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12163296

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
23. We are in complete agreement on this
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:10 PM
Jun 2019

All of the statements cited by Dershowitz are at best dicta and have no force or effect.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
25. Yes, at BEST they are dicta. But they don't even apply to impeachment in the House
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:23 PM
Jun 2019

They are about the possibility of the court intervening IF the Senate were to remove a president "in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results" such as, as Justice White says, using a coin toss or because they think the president is a "bad guy.""

Neither of these offhand comments has any connection whatsoever with or bearing on whether a president has standing to sue a House majority for pursuing impeachment against him.

Dershowitz knows this. He also knows that most people aren't lawyers and won't understand the difference and if he uses big enough words and throws around the names of a couple of Supreme Court justices, they'll think his argument makes sense.

Beausoleil

(2,827 posts)
31. So how does this square with the Chief Justice
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:50 PM
Jun 2019

presiding over the Senate when the Presiperp is on trial? He's going to allow it to be tossed to the full court?

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
33. It would be up to the full court to decide whether to take the case and it's highly unlikely
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:58 PM
Jun 2019

the Court would ever agree to hear an appeal of an impeachment trial presided over by the Chief Justice.

But it probably would never get that far since an appeal would have to start in a lower court and they would no doubt toss it out as soon as it was filed - the only thing keeping the judge from tossing it out within 5 seconds of the case being filed would be his or her difficulty in stopping laughing long enough to sign the order of dismissal.

PRETZEL

(3,245 posts)
35. Love the last comment,
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:11 PM
Jun 2019

but what if the reverse were the scenario.

As I read a post upthread (and it may have been yours) both Justices cited by Dershowitz is based on the premise that the Senate convicts without a trial, thus denying the President his right to defend himself,

What if it's the other way around and the Senate sets the rules by which the House is not allowed to prosecute the Articles of Impeachment to the fullest extent and then the Senate votes not to remove from office?

It just seems by the example given, wouldn't the House be allowed to appeal to the full SC?

Or, is just a moot point in that as soon as Cheif Justice Roberts calls the proceding to order, the case would be on record?

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
40. Great question
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:20 PM
Jun 2019

If that were to happen, the House would have no recourse since they have no due process right to a fair impeachment trial.

Kind of like how a defendant whose rights have been violated in a criminal trial can gt a reversal and new trial or the conviction thrown out altogether but, if, for some reason, the defendant gets an unfair advantage, the prosecution has no way to appeal.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
34. The Chief Justice's role in a Senate impeachment trial
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:02 PM
Jun 2019

is not that of a trial judge. He’s just there to be sure the Senate follows its own rules and procedures. He has no power over the outcome.

dawnie51

(959 posts)
22. This does not surprise me....
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 02:47 PM
Jun 2019

Dump has sued his way to riches all his life. He has used the courts and lawyers as his personal leg breakers, and in many cases, just the threats were enough. So of course he would spew this nonsense. He is in for a rude awakening.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
27. The irony is that now that he's become the most powerful man on earth, he now has less power to use
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:27 PM
Jun 2019

the courts to bully people into bending to his will. That's partly because the people he's trying aren't afraid of him and have more power than the small contractors he beat up on back in New York.

SWBTATTReg

(21,859 posts)
28. Good point and I think a very valid one, and one that rump is discovering that threatening...
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:33 PM
Jun 2019

all of these lawsuits and the like, like he did in NYC etc. won't work.

rurallib

(62,346 posts)
41. He'll file it in Federal District Court in Moscow, Russia
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:22 PM
Jun 2019

The ?Honorable? Vladimir Putin presiding.

Surely impeachment is against the Russian constitution - and Trump is their employee.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
50. I was on the Clinton Victory Counsel team and we look at a ton of lawsuits
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:49 PM
Jun 2019

The Victory Counsel team reviewed over 6000 law suits involving trump. Many were trump stiffing contractors or suing to collect gambling debts. trump likes to sue but he often forgets to pay his attorneys which is why none of the White Shoe DC firms will represent him

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump is telling aides he...