Nancy Pelosi just got spanked by the Supreme Court in a new impeachment ruling. Pelosi has rushed the impeachment proceedings for political reasons, not legal.
She knows impeachment is a loser so she is trying to rush it so the Dems can be done with it by the end of January 2020.
Pelosi hopes that in the following months the Dems can repair the damage they are doing with impeachment by hoping the American voters will forget it in time for the 2020 election.
It is political cowardice and the GOP has called her out for rushing. Jonathon Turley ripped Pelosi and the Dems for not bothering to subpoena witnesses and records and go through the courts to get them.
There is nothing more serious than an impeachment so Pelosi should follow the law and allow Trump due process to fight.
Which is exactly what the Supreme Court just decided in a crushing blow to the Dems. They agreed and in doing so basically destroyed one the Dems charges – obstruction.
Trump can’t obstruct until he runs out of appeals and court actions and not one day before.
So out goes one article of impeachment leaving only abuse of power. But as Ukraine is corrupt and Presidents routinely hold up aid for various reasons but mainly corruption, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board or drop impeachment all together.
At least according to noted legal scholar Alan Dershowitz.
Alan wrote: “The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee along a party line vote last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The full House of Representatives will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Thus, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the inquiry.”
Alan goes on with a devastating argument:
“If the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the very fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through the courts.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price for supporting the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, a reason for voting against at least one of the articles.
It would be a smart way out for them. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact of these articles on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that demonstrates some nuanced recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to this process.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as umpires between the legislative and executive branches. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.”
Follow Us
Were this world an endless plain, and by sailing eastward we could for ever reach new distances