- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:21 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Shelby, the retiring senator from Alabama,
There is no way that Shelby desires to retire and spend the last of his years in hiding.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:22 am to Jjdoc
If the left and establishment wanted "unity", they would never have even started this, much less gotten this far.
They are sick, twisted, bullies that want to beat us all down.
They are sick, twisted, bullies that want to beat us all down.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:23 am to JackieTreehorn
quote:
The GOP will destroy themselves
A little help could not hurt.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:27 am to teke184
quote:
Even with no Robert’s, it is a bigger farce to make one of the jurors into the presiding judge.
1. Did the Democrats frick themselves out of a vote with this move?
2. Ordinarily an impeachment is not appealable bc its a political process. Trump is now a private citizen. I don’t see how some act of Congress convicting a private citizen of impeachment isn’t reversible by the SCOTUS. Especially bc the CJ of the US has already said basically it’s unconstitutional by refusing to participate.
3. Of all the idiotic over crazy the Democrats get. This is by far the most idiotic.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:33 am to Jjdoc
Let those Republicans vote to impeach. 
They must not like their day job. Being woke and Republican isn't a valid business model.
They must not like their day job. Being woke and Republican isn't a valid business model.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:46 am to DallasTiger11
quote:There is no reason for him to participate.
Is Roberts refusing to participate?
The CJSCOTUS is required to preside only during an impeachment trial of the sitting President. Trump is not the sitting President.
Set aside the fact that this is the trial of a FORMER official, and basically it is no different than the impeachment trial of a District Judge or a legislator. No CJSCOTUS is required.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:47 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
You can't have an impeachment trial without the Chief Justice. There is no provision in the Constitution for an alternate.
John Roberts interpreted it as CJSCOTUS must only preside over impeachments of a sitting President. Any other impeachment process he is not required to preside over the trial just like he is not required to preside over the impeachment of other federal officials. However, that doesn't really matter. There is no standing for Trump to challenge it in court until after he is convicted and the Senate votes to bar him from holding office again. If 67 Senators vote against Trump and he challenges it in court, and the court(s) rule that CJSCOTUS must preside then the Senate will redo the trial and reconvicts him and vote to bar him from office again. If < 67 Senators vote to convict then he will be acquitted and this will be a laughable footnote in history.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:49 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:First, a Senator is NOT a "juror" in an impeachment trial. The role is sort-of analogous, but not very much.quote:Exactly.
Even with no Robert’s, it is a bigger farce to make one of the jurors into the presiding judge.
A Senator presides over almost ALL impeachment trials. The ONLY exception (in which the CJSCOTUS is to preside) is an impeachment trial of the sitting President.
Trump is not the sitting President.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:49 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Having a hard time getting to 17. But I 100% believe Mitch will try to deliver.
Mitch and 44 other Senate republicans voted less than 2 weeks ago to throw out the impeachment as unconstitutional. I highly highly highly doubt that Mitch and 16 other republicans vote to convict someone in a process that they had recently voted as unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:51 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:Link?
(Roberts) has refused because he doesn't believe it's constitutional to try someone after leaving office.
I don't think Roberts has said anything REMOTELY like this. If I am mistaken, please edify me (with that link).
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 8:52 am
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:52 am to supatigah
quote:
leahy presiding and voting is the judge also serving on the jury
Its more like the prosecutor's office serving as the prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Bold strategy.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:54 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Now, the question that should be asked is why hasn't Trump's team filed a motion to stop the proceedings on this basis? He even has Roberts on his side.
SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in history that impeachment is a political issue not a legal issue. In order to have standing to sue there has to be damage. Trump will not be legally damaged until after he has been convicted and barred from office. If that happens then he will have standing to take action in the court(s) where ultimately the whole thing would be thrown out (if Biden and the dems have not packed the courts by then).
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:56 am to Wednesday
quote:quote:1. Did the Democrats frick themselves out of a vote with this move?
Even with no Robert’s, it is a bigger farce to make one of the jurors into the presiding judge.
Is there a Senate rule which precludes a presiding Senator from casting a vote? I don't think so. In the 2010 impeachment trial of Louisiana-based US District Judge Thomas Porteous, Senator Inouye both presided and voted.
2. Ordinarily an impeachment is not appealable bc its a political process. Trump is now a private citizen. I don’t see how some act of Congress convicting a private citizen of impeachment isn’t reversible by the SCOTUS. Especially bc the CJ of the US has already said basically it’s unconstitutional by refusing to participate.
I think that the constitutionality issue is subject to appeal, but not the substantive issue. Honestly, I don't know that the issue has ever BEEN appealed in order to test the question.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 9:23 am
Posted on 2/9/21 at 8:58 am to AggieHank86
Hank answer a cut and dry yes or no question: In your legal mind can you impeach (I assume you know the actual meaning of the word) and convict someone who isn’t currently serving in a governmental position?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:03 am to Jjdoc
Turtle's lemmings will vote how he does, or how he tells them to.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:03 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Having a hard time getting to 17. But I 100% believe Mitch will try to deliver.
Then why would McCarthy meet with Trump in Mar-a-Lago?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:04 am to KosmoCramer
quote:It is not a "strategy." It is the terms set forth in the Constitution.
Its more like the prosecutor's office serving as the prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Bold strategy.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:05 am to chity
Really? Why would they not be that stupid? It’s not like we are going to do anything about it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News