Never Trumpers Fantasize About Tanking U.S. Economy so GOP Backs Impeachment of Donald Trump

Breitbart ^ | 26 Dec 2018 | Matthew Boyle

[adorno]

...that conviction and impeachment can be appealed to USSC

During this whole discussion, you've been assuming that impeachment is a simple process, and that all it takes is for some democrats to be politically motivated to start and finish the process. But, it's not that simple, is it? What are the numbers needed in the house to start impeachment, and how worried would they be about their prospects of getting re-elected in the next election cycle, which comes sooner than the impeachment process can get started? Then, there is the senate, which as we all know, is controlled by republicans; so, how far do you think democrats would get before the senate puts a complete stop to the insanity? And, the people are the ultimate deciders, since it's they who decide if an impeachment is warranted, via polls and voting. The simplicity is not as simple as you think.

[DugwayDuke]

adorno Did you or did you not claim that conviction and impeachment can be appealed to USSC?

[adorno]

No president has ever been forced out via impeachment. And the Supreme Court has never been called to review and/or undo an impeachment or to negate the reasons for any particular impeachment.

However, the role of the Supreme Court has never been clear:

The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's 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 responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.