Posted on 10/02/2019 10:34:57 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
There are appointees waiting.
No vacancies should be the goal.
Pelosi’s main objective is to wound Trump’s 2020 campaign with an impeachment determination around his neck. And if it leads to a removal or a close acquittal in the Senate so much the better. We must remember that Trump is a threat to the Uniparty and even a Republican dominated Senate is not to be considered a lock.
I posted this the other day, suggesting a stronger role for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that brings a more active participation of the third branch.
-PJ
Here's what I'd like to see happen.Even though the Constitution calls this a "trial," we saw in the Clinton impeachment trial that the Senator still think of themselves as Senators first, jurors second. This means that that the Constitutional power of each chamber to make its own rules applies to the trial in the Senate, too.
This means that the "trial" does not have to operate like any civil or criminal trial. It's actually a loose term as applied here, more like a body that decides one's political fate. The Senators will debate the rules of the trial before it begins. I expect the Democrats to try to limit the subpoena power of the President, that is, his ability to call witnesses in his defense. The Democrats may also try to limit the scope of the defense to only what was in the article of impeachment, and not allow the President to call into doubt the veracity of other Congressional Democrats. They may even try to limit the number of days that the President has to offer his defense and who may be allowed onto the Senate floor in his defense (e.g., no Giuliani).
The wild card here is the part of the Constitution that says that the Chief Justice "presides" over the trial. Does this mean that he is simply a figurehead who rubber-stamps anything that the Senators demand, or will he actually run the proceedings and exercise his authority to "preside" as HE sees fit (separation of powers)? Rehnquist seemed a bit weak, to me, in this aspect during the Clinton trial. I'd like to see a more assertive "presiding" by a Chief Justice to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches both get fair treatment, even thought this is the Senate's playground.
So, I'd like to see the President's team try a trial tactic of motioning the Chief Justice for a summary judgment, saying that the outcome is obvious. I'd like to see the President's team declare that the articles of impeachment are flawed, that they are based on unproven hearsay by biased witnesses, that the procedures that produced them in the House were illegitimate, that there were no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the President, and that the nation would be severely harmed by proceeding with this when an election is less than a year away. Essentially, let the people decide.
The House Democrats would naturally object, and Roberts would hear their objections. Then Roberts should decide for the President and summarily end the trial. No Senator will be on record voting for or against, so they are all protected with their constituents. The House will say they did their part. The Chief Justice will be somewhat rehabilitated with conservatives. The People will be spared a national embarrassment.
And the President is free to begin his reelection campaign.
That’s a good thought. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Well that’s remarkably fast!
Larry and I are Twitter friends. This is the second piece he has contributed to my blog in the past week. I hope to have more from him in the future.
Unlike others, I never plagiarize.
+++++
Sounds OK to me.
And for those few Freepers who didn’t know, Larry Schweikart is one of us. He’s LS here at Good Old Free Republic.
Announcer: “ He just set a record!”
“Yeah. but he should have been faster.”
I have to agree with you statements but I believe the Democrats are too smart to let this go to full impeachment. Therefore the impeachment inquiry. meaningless and it will drag on forever like the Mueller thing.
You need to contribute more commentary on articles here at FR. IMO
I'm not so sure that's true. Chief Justice Roberts will be presiding over the trial, and he can limit the scope of evidence and witnesses. Considering his history of inventing law from thin air, as well as his combative behavior toward Trump, I don't trust him to be a fair arbiter of justice.
Turtle’s biggest failure was not identifying to VOTERS, those GOP-e Senators who were unreliable.
He would rather enjoy his power world than help clean up the GOP.
McCain should have been thrown out decades before he died.
Romney should never have been made a Senator
MooKoww from AK
Graham
Flake
Everyone of them is a flake and will do ANYTHING for a buck
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.