General Discussion

Drahthaardogs

(6,843 posts)

132. Well, it was lost on me

Thu Dec 19, 2019, 11:32 AM

Dec 2019

You obviously know your law, but I found that response only brought up an image of a petulant 15 year old. I am a scientist, a toxicologist, so I often field ridiculous or misinformed claims. I have found a clear response with the facts effective. I have not found sarcasm particularly beneficial.

Its your argument, but if your intent was to use that response to show or mock the other's position - it failed, at least for me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Laurence Tribe : the Senate can't require the House, to "immediately" whatever is [View all] syringis Dec 2019 OP

That's a non-unique argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #1

If they don't have any Articles, they can't hold a trial shawn703 Dec 2019 #2

Sez who? FBaggins Dec 2019 #3

Sez logic. If you don't have something you can't use it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #8

The articles are public FBaggins Dec 2019 #12

Without a management team delivering the Articles, the senate has ... UpInArms Dec 2019 #28

Sez who? FBaggins Dec 2019 #34

Exactly DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2019 #60

One error there FBaggins Dec 2019 #64

You may be correct DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2019 #82

I read this on another post here on DU. RE: the rules.......... napi21 Dec 2019 #208

Not much wrong in there... but also nothing that rebuts the argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #209

So your thinking is that... Eyeball_Kid Dec 2019 #72

"They would sully their own integrity" Moscow Mitch cares about money and power not integrity & ... uponit7771 Dec 2019 #211

No jury has a right to try until they have been given the charge by the prosecutors (HOUSE). Logic. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #89

Untrue FBaggins Dec 2019 #93

Fine. No COURT has a right to try until they have been given the charge by the prosecutors (HOUSE). Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #96

Already answered FBaggins Dec 2019 #101

Then the Senate could say impeachment didn't happen. dumbcat Dec 2019 #190

... until the House actually tenders it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #204

The Senate can't say that... but the House might FBaggins Dec 2019 #210

You're missing the point. syringis Dec 2019 #23

Absolutely! FBaggins Dec 2019 #57

If the impeachment process is still ongoing, wnylib Dec 2019 #77

Each impeachment is it's own thing FBaggins Dec 2019 #88

Of course we don't want to overshadow our wnylib Dec 2019 #100

That's very interesting. That the House can't add Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2019 #141

Sorry.. they CAN add a new Article FBaggins Dec 2019 #144

Well guess Mueller findings ship has sailed. Too many Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2019 #148

But delaying the inevitable doesn't change anything Recursion Dec 2019 #99

Also, by the way, sez Laurance Tribe Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #54

Your "appeal to authority" fallacy is accepted FBaggins Dec 2019 #59

It's not an appeal to authority. It's data for a claim. And it's solid data. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #69

Which takes us full circle FBaggins Dec 2019 #74

That's a whole different argument. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #85

Not really FBaggins Dec 2019 #98

I don't think they need a justification. Have never heard they do. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #108

"The Senate does not try impeachments" ??? FBaggins Dec 2019 #112

Right. My miswording. The House impeaches. The Senate tries the impeachment to remove (or not). Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #115

Sigh FBaggins Dec 2019 #117

There are clear Senate rules that state they have to wait Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #120

That was actually a correction of Tribe FBaggins Dec 2019 #145

Tribe also said that the travel ban was unconstitutional. SlimJimmy Dec 2019 #215

You mean the one courts rejected as unconsitutional? Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #216

Also, I don't know why you are flexing so hard on McConnel/RW talking points. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #121

I'm not. I haven't seen any RW argument on the matter at all. FBaggins Dec 2019 #146

What do you think the "trial" would look like with no managers and no Chief Justice? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #125

Sorry... it's an unsupportable fantasy that Roberts would take Pelosi's side FBaggins Dec 2019 #147

That's not "taking Pelosi's side." StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #156

It would be in Tribe's imagined scenario FBaggins Dec 2019 #161

Then answer me this: Karma13612 Dec 2019 #182

Whoever the Senate decides FBaggins Dec 2019 #186

They don't have the authority to end the H's investigation and decide the two articles pnwmom Dec 2019 #196

Nobody has said anything about controlling the House's ability to investigate FBaggins Dec 2019 #197

The Senate doesn't control the initiation of the impeachment. The House does. pnwmom Dec 2019 #200

"The Senate can't grab impeachment articles from the Internet and consider it all good." AncientGeezer Dec 2019 #217

Not a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Tribe makes cogent arguments which you have not refuted. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #91

It's not a fallacy when the person IS an authority and the poster is anything but. pnwmom Dec 2019 #126

That isn't how the "appeal to authority" fallacy works FBaggins Dec 2019 #131

I believe the House is involved in the Senate trial.. at least the Managers are. honest.abe Dec 2019 #163

That's the current model, yes FBaggins Dec 2019 #167

You got it!! LiberalFighter Dec 2019 #178

Cuthbert Allgood Upthevibe Dec 2019 #71

Senate rules require the trial to start after the House notifies them managers have been appointed StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #66

Two problems with that FBaggins Dec 2019 #76

The Senate rules don't require the House to do anything, much less do it "immediately" StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #86

Much closer FBaggins Dec 2019 #150

I'm not arguing that Tribe is wrong. I'm saying you are StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #164

Then you should re-read what you're replying to FBaggins Dec 2019 #169

Tribe says Senate rules "immediately" DON'T (DO NOT) apply to the House. Read that. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #94

Um... that was the point of the very first reply on the thread FBaggins Dec 2019 #149

Per the Constitution, they can't hold the trial without the House Managers, and there aren't any. nt pnwmom Dec 2019 #124

Per the constitution? FBaggins Dec 2019 #154

The House has the sole power of impeachment. pnwmom Dec 2019 #158

Note - They already did that FBaggins Dec 2019 #159

The impeachment case won't be turned over till the House managers are appointed. Without the case pnwmom Dec 2019 #162

There is no such rule FBaggins Dec 2019 #166

The Senate won't have the impeachment case that the House voted on unless the House sends it. pnwmom Dec 2019 #170

That's really an imaginary argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #173

They have the Articles. They were posted online and read on national TV Azathoth Dec 2019 #20

As I said elsewhere above, I'm going to go with Tribe over you. No offense. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #58

They don't "have" the articles StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #67

They have not officially been given the Articles. They are not officially given until separate House Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #97

What can the Senate do to force the House to turn over the case. Can there be a standoff. ancianita Dec 2019 #6

Tribe's correct that they can't do anything to force the House FBaggins Dec 2019 #9

The Senate has nothing to try. They have no genuine Articles of Impeachment until bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #11

Again... there is no such rule FBaggins Dec 2019 #14

I don't see it, or how it would play, or why any Supreme Court Justice would support it bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #18

And there you see the weakness of the argument FBaggins Dec 2019 #25

Sorry to barge in here but I think the problem with your scenario is Chief Justice Roberts. honest.abe Dec 2019 #81

Not a chance FBaggins Dec 2019 #90

Im not talking about a SCOTUS ruling.. just the interpretation of the standard procedures. honest.abe Dec 2019 #92

Notification to the Chief Justice does not come from House impeachment managers FBaggins Dec 2019 #103

Right, but clearly Roberts will know McConnell is playing games... honest.abe Dec 2019 #104

Um... let's not miss the obvious here FBaggins Dec 2019 #106

Pelosi's "game" is just fighting for a legitimate trial.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #107

You and I might see it that way FBaggins Dec 2019 #111

Roberts is a serious principled justice and would not want his legacy tainted.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #113

Good luck with that FBaggins Dec 2019 #116

He would simply be requesting that the Senate follow standard impeachment procedures.. honest.abe Dec 2019 #118

I think that it's fair to say that nobody realistically believed that the Senate would convict Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2019 #136

You shout it from the rooftops and hope that voters are paying attention FBaggins Dec 2019 #142

The Chief Justice is NOT going to "preside" over a "trial" with no House managers in a process that StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #127

You are misinterpreting the phrase "sole power" Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #160

Not at all FBaggins Dec 2019 #165

As this will be only the third impeachment trial in US history, there is little precedent Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #177

Your certainty is refuted by McConnell's own words: Fiendish Thingy Dec 2019 #181

I don't think you read that correctly FBaggins Dec 2019 #185

Thank you StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #172

Yes, there IS such a rule. Look it up. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2019 #102

I think you missed the point FBaggins Dec 2019 #105

So it's to be assumed that those rules will be public. In writing. ancianita Dec 2019 #19

Of course FBaggins Dec 2019 #29

Got it. ancianita Dec 2019 #31

The Senate has no trial and hence no power Karma13612 Dec 2019 #184

That keeps getting repeated... but it never get's supported FBaggins Dec 2019 #188

The Senate has the power to try all Impeachments Karma13612 Dec 2019 #205

Yes, but... syringis Dec 2019 #13

And those core principles come from the Constitution FBaggins Dec 2019 #15

Not even! syringis Dec 2019 #43

In the universe? FBaggins Dec 2019 #45

You missed another point. syringis Dec 2019 #49

Sorry... I didn't see it as a language issue and didn't mean to imply that FBaggins Dec 2019 #53

How is the Senate going to impeach without the House? Farmer-Rick Dec 2019 #48

The Senate doesn't impeach... but I get the point FBaggins Dec 2019 #51

It's a trial. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #55

Tribe answers that too FBaggins Dec 2019 #78

I used the criminal trial analogy for the use of prosecutor/court. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #87

That goes back to my earlier point FBaggins Dec 2019 #109

I suspect that H2O Man Dec 2019 #139

Yeah. I wasn't trying to go too far into the analogy Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #140

Thanks. H2O Man Dec 2019 #168

Prosecutors CAN get sealed indictments FBaggins Dec 2019 #151

I understand and H2O Man Dec 2019 #171

So you know more than Prof. Tribe? I seriously doubt that. triron Dec 2019 #155

Speaker Pelosi is fully aware what can and can't be done. LiberalFighter Dec 2019 #176

I'm sure that she is FBaggins Dec 2019 #180

Moscow Mitch could shit in the floor and walk off and leave it, too. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #207

Frodo, I think you don't get how the rules favor the House in this case. Nitram Dec 2019 #214

Sorry, Mitch. 3Hotdogs Dec 2019 #4

Cute FBaggins Dec 2019 #5

Can additional charges be added? Scarsdale Dec 2019 #27

The House can vote new articles whenever they like. nt FBaggins Dec 2019 #30

Rep Nadler specifically entered "...including five days to make additions and corrections" FailureToCommunicate Dec 2019 #37

I doubt that they care FBaggins Dec 2019 #40

She will pass the Articles to the Senate when they are prepared to receive them. kentuck Dec 2019 #7

She could highlight the ludicrousness of McConnell's claim of lack of thoroughness by holding it JudyM Dec 2019 #174

Senate cannot create their own Articles of Impeachment bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #10

So you're saying that he hasn't been impeached? FBaggins Dec 2019 #17

I'm saying the process must be completed before it is official bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #21

Where is "the process"? FBaggins Dec 2019 #33

There are processes that must be followed to refer legislation passed by the House to the Senate StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #70

That's true FBaggins Dec 2019 #73

The House isn't preventing the Senate from trying the impeachment. It's totally up to the Senate StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #75

I"m missing the rock and hard place FBaggins Dec 2019 #84

She's forcing the Senate to lay out the process they plan to use before they're ready StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #110

She's insisting on it... she isn't forcing it. FBaggins Dec 2019 #114

They can't try the impeachment unless the House turns it over to them, and the House pnwmom Dec 2019 #179

What do you mean by "not finished with it" FBaggins Dec 2019 #183

He has been impeached on those two articles, but there's no Constitutional limit on the number pnwmom Dec 2019 #187

Nobody is arguing that the House can't keep investigating and/or impeach again FBaggins Dec 2019 #191

In addition, the Senate has rules and processes for accepting the articles from the House StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #68

Seems entirely logical FBaggins Dec 2019 #119

Of course the Senate can make its own rules StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #123

They would have all kinds of options FBaggins Dec 2019 #128

Sure, they can dismiss them. And Trump will never be able to say he was exonerated by the Senate, pnwmom Dec 2019 #189

We could try to spin it that way... and no doubt some would... FBaggins Dec 2019 #192

No, dismissal is NOT bigger. It only takes 51 votes to get a dismissal, but 67 to get a conviction. pnwmom Dec 2019 #194

You're applying the wrong comparison. FBaggins Dec 2019 #195

Let's pretend that Pelosi had already sent the articles. pnwmom Dec 2019 #198

Let's consider the reverse scenario FBaggins Dec 2019 #199

I have no idea. n/t pnwmom Dec 2019 #201

Good enough for me FBaggins Dec 2019 #202

Because of the nature of the charges and situation at the time TheRealNorth Dec 2019 #203

I am so glad Laurence Tribe is assisting the Team essentially... FarPoint Dec 2019 #16

+1 if ever there was a time for all hands on deck, this is it. Now we just need strong PR quips to JudyM Dec 2019 #175

Absolutely.... FarPoint Dec 2019 #193

If the House stalls in naming its Impeachment Managers Mr. Ected Dec 2019 #22

Yes, there can be a trial Azathoth Dec 2019 #26

I distinctly heard Nadler give everyone at least 5 days to UpInArms Dec 2019 #32

Which is not an issue FBaggins Dec 2019 #35

Without a clear and approved record, it cannot be transmitted UpInArms Dec 2019 #38

Repetition doesn't add clarity FBaggins Dec 2019 #41

Frodo? UpInArms Dec 2019 #44

The Bill is already done from a Constitutional standpoint Azathoth Dec 2019 #42

No, it's not StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #130

That's fine, but it has no effect on whether the House can block a Senate trial Azathoth Dec 2019 #39

Here's a link for you UpInArms Dec 2019 #46

Notice where the link comes from? FBaggins Dec 2019 #50

Hi Frodo! UpInArms Dec 2019 #52

Um... Hi? FBaggins Dec 2019 #63

My argument is that your repeated use of "sez" Drahthaardogs Dec 2019 #80

That's ironic FBaggins Dec 2019 #122

Well, it was lost on me Drahthaardogs Dec 2019 #132

The Senate would first have to change its rules. onenote Dec 2019 #61

True FBaggins Dec 2019 #65

What change was made to the House rules? onenote Dec 2019 #133

They didn't just copy/paste the existing rules from the Clinton impeachment FBaggins Dec 2019 #138

And the beauty of it is she's making Mitch producing a plan a "condition precedent" to appointing StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #129

And the further beauty of it is, she probably has planned this from the beginning Mr. Ected Dec 2019 #135

Yep. She didn't just think this up yesterday StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #137

I agree on the twitterverse comment... but you still haven't answered my primary question FBaggins Dec 2019 #152

Gosh, it's not like there are no Bills on Moscow Mitch's desk ... UpInArms Dec 2019 #24

Fu*k Mitch Roy Rolling Dec 2019 #36

The Senate rules don't require the House to "immediately" present the articles of impeachment onenote Dec 2019 #47

+1 UpInArms Dec 2019 #56

Bravo - onenote, well said. gab13by13 Dec 2019 #62

If the Senate could vote on this Mr.Bill Dec 2019 #79

Exactly. honest.abe Dec 2019 #83

+1, or would have just made up articles & then voted on Trumps acquittal based on whatever notion uponit7771 Dec 2019 #212

The passion here at DU that can be found reading thru NoMoreRepugs Dec 2019 #95

Absolutely a good point. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2019 #134

IF I understand correctly .... LenaBaby61 Dec 2019 #143

Now that impeachment has Officially started, can the senate still change their rules? Kablooie Dec 2019 #153

Yes FBaggins Dec 2019 #157

+1, and Moscow Mitch will change rules quick fast and not give a damn what folk think about him or uponit7771 Dec 2019 #213

Fucking ridiculous. This is bullshit. warmfeet Dec 2019 #206