General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump 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
Link to tweet
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 hadnt acted constitutionally.
Dershowitz has lost it and only an idiot like trump would try this lawsuit
DUgosh
(3,052 posts)CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)That felt so good to read!
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)DownriverDem
(6,206 posts)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.
malaise
(267,824 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Stargazer09
(2,131 posts)I would love to see that!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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)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)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)at the very least the suit would take an eternity to get to the supremes.
samnsara
(17,570 posts)...hes pert near done for.
watoos
(7,142 posts)Dershowitz needs something to keep him occupied.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,485 posts)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)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.....
Leghorn21
(13,520 posts)??!?!???!
LOSER
Ligyron
(7,592 posts)Man is totally clueless.
This show is for his idiotic base to show how he's "winning".
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)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.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)malaise
(267,824 posts)I'd pay to watch that
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)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)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)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)this government better than him. Its 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.
CatMor
(6,212 posts)peggysue2
(10,811 posts)Sue anyone and everything that criticizes, disagrees or finds him personally repellant.
Bring it on, Babyfingers!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)you did not graduate from the You Tube School of Law.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)I hope he gets paid up front and in cash.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Response to Gothmog (Original post)
struggle4progress This message was self-deleted by its author.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)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.
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.
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)All of the statements cited by Dershowitz are at best dicta and have no force or effect.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)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)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)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)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)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)is not that of a trial judge. Hes just there to be sure the Senate follows its own rules and procedures. He has no power over the outcome.
Beausoleil
(2,827 posts)Chief Justice screwed up.
Don't see that getting anywhere.
dawnie51
(959 posts)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)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)all of these lawsuits and the like, like he did in NYC etc. won't work.
JDC
(10,084 posts)Shrike47
(6,913 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)sprinkleeninow
(20,136 posts)rurallib
(62,346 posts)The ?Honorable? Vladimir Putin presiding.
Surely impeachment is against the Russian constitution - and Trump is their employee.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)Gothmog
(144,005 posts)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
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Innocent people don't attack the accuser
spanone
(135,636 posts)Impeach his sorry ass NOW.