Could Democrats and Republicans soon find themselves entangled in a Supreme Court impeachment intervention?
Politics
For weeks, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has boldly bragged that as soon as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump over to the US Senate, he will work hand in glove with The White House to swiftly see the case dismissed and Trump exonerated. He wants NO witnesses, NO testimony, and little to NO debate. Or, in other words, despite the oath that he will swear to conduct a fair and impartial trial, McConnell is already prepped to present an unfair and partial sham of a trial.
.
Now comes word that Speaker Pelosi has withheld the Articles of Impeachment from McConnell for a reason and has a little trick of her own up her sleeve: a Supreme Court impeachment intervention.
During an impeachment trial, the constitution clearly states that the US Senate must conduct procedures that meet at least the very basic definition of fairness. Anything less could be considered collusion and a coverup. Well, McConnell has already boasted that he intends to collude with defendant Trump, and so, the stage is undoubtedly set for a Supreme Court impeachment intervention.
The precedent for impeachment intervention was set back in 1993 during Nixon v. United States (no relation to former president Richard Nixon).
When Mississippi federal judge Walter L. Nixon was impeached in 1989 and removed from office, he sued the United States, the secretary of state and the Administrative Office of the US Courts, arguing that the Senate had not conducted a proper “trial” as required by the Constitution. Although the high court eventually ruled against him, several justices argued that, while Nixon deserved to lose, it was possible the Senate would one day conduct such an unfair impeachment trial that the courts would be obliged to hear a case if an aggrieved party sought a judicial remedy.
And that is precisely the situation we are on the verge of facing today.
“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.” – Oath Senators will take on impeachment
During Nixon v. United States, Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun and David Souter argued: what if the trial were manifestly bogus?
“Were the Senate, for example, to adopt the practice of automatically entering a judgment of conviction whenever articles of impeachment were delivered from the House it is quite clear that the Senate will have failed to ‘try’ impeachments,” Justice White wrote.
If the Senate were to convict “upon a coin-toss,” or “upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply ‘a bad guy,’ judicial interference might well be appropriate,” Justice Souter added.
“In such circumstances,” he continued, “the Senate’s action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.”
“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” – GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham
Since McConnell has blatantly declared that he does not intend to be impartial and will, in fact, work lockstep with The White House during the trial, that would be a clear violation of his oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” If McConnell were to keep his word and dispense with witnesses while speedily steering the eventual outcome to the one desired by Donald Trump, that would reduce the Senate proceeding to the kind of “summary determination” that the 3 justices warned could one day become a possibility. Such an act could be seen by reasonable judges as “seriously threatening the integrity of the results” and a clear dismissal of the standard Justice Souter suggested should trigger judicial review.
Under a Supreme Court impeachment intervention, the high court could force the GOP-led Senate to conduct a fair and impartial trial, or to retry an impeachment case altogether that did not meet the basic standards of impartiality.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi clearly knows this and has used her time withholding the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House of Representatives to set the snare for Leader McConnell.
Should McConnell attempt to conduct a sham impeachment trial with the outcome already predetermined via collusion with the defendant (Donald Trump), Pelosi and the Democrats are ready to call on the US Supreme Court for a bit of American tradition known as justice.
Now comes word that Speaker Pelosi has withheld the Articles of Impeachment from McConnell for a reason and has a little trick of her own up her sleeve: a Supreme Court impeachment intervention. […]-DJ
Among her greatest skills, as a political leader, Nancy Pelosi is a brilliant strategist. And were this another time in our nation’s history when men and women took their allegiance to Our country seriously- along with their oath to uphold the Constitution – I’d have more faith in Pelosi’s plan to have the Supreme Court intervene.
However, this is here and now (Jan. 2020) and the sad truth is, I have very little confidence in several justices who currently serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, especially with Trump in office.
But we shall see.