Yes, but it is described with specific words and phrases in the US Constitution. Some of those being:
Article II Sec 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
This is easily (and rather obviously) interpreted as saying a President can NOT be removed just because the House and Senate do not like him. SCOTUS could reinforce that with a ruling that would serve as clear precedent. It would be MUCH better for SCOTUS to do this now, rather than AFTER, should the President be "convicted" of a non-crime. Imagine the uproar if a President was impeached and removed from office, only for SCOTUS to pull out the constitution and point out the above, simple clause, and invalidate the whole circus.
At this point, it seems highly unlikely that the President will be convicted in the Senate. However, due to the idiocy of Pelosi, we are at a point where something that "goes without saying" needs to be said, and set in precedent. Even if it doesn't happen until AFTER he is acquitted, this argument should go to SCOTUS. Reinforcing the clear language of Article II sec 4 would not only be a huge slapdown of Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, but it would ERASE Trump's impeachment, deeming it unconstitutional and illegitimate.
Excellent point and very well said!
Article II Sec 4 clearly states....... "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"......none of which are delineated in the House articles.
......it seems highly unlikely that the President will be convicted. However, due to the idiocy of Pelosi, we are at a point where the SCOTUS needs to reinforce the clear language of Article II sec 4 to NEGATE the Houses's foolish impeachment......it is clearly unconstitutional and illegitimate. hat tip ETCM