I've seen some ink that indicates that the House not only 'forwards' the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but also sends representatives that act somewhat like prosecutors at the trial. If Pelosi withholds those officials, perhaps she can argue any trial is not legitimate. Not sure how that works out. In lesser trials if the prosecutor fails to show for a case or send a representative and fails to seek an extension from the court, could not council move to dismiss?
Maybe Pelosi is surveying her possible prosecutors and doesn't like what she sees? It's all so stupid because she and she alone dug the hole she's in in order to cling to the speakership
Prediction: It doesn’t get sent to the Senate. He is not actually impeached, but that won’t matter. It will be Spun that he was impeached, but the articles weren’t sent to the Senate because they are politically tainted or whatever. The low information crowd doesn’t know the difference.
I drafted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus once.....during my first year of practice (21 years ago)....and it was never filed.
That's how uncommon this is.
It was on this case and was all about the issue in footnote 2. Note that this was the first firm I worked for out of law school and my experience there was so negative that I left for a much better opportunity after 3 months of practice. It was neither of the firms listed on the opinion. After my boss succeeded in having a judge rule he had waived any and all atty/client privilege, the case was pulled from that firm.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1378377.html
Suffice to say, Mandamus (a/k/a Mandate) is an extreme action.
Read it- I'm not saying it is wrong on the law. I AM saying that the filings and rulings outlined ARE NOT mandatory. Again, I believe that the most likely scenario if ANY attempt to get SCOTUS involved is a recitation of "separation of powers" and a refusal to do anything.
Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.
Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.
Since 1900 the Senate has confirmed nine justices to the Supreme Court during an election year. In all but one instance the Senate was controlled by the party of the President. In one case the Senate was controlled by the opposition party (Democrats), and both of the President's (Reagan) nominees (Bork and Ginsburg) were swatted down. A compromise candidate was finally confirmed - Anthony Kennedy. Technically rated a conservative, that was … not precisely complete.
Senator Joe Biden, in 1992, spoke to President GHW Bush via a floor speech in the Democrat-controlled Senate where he stated that should a SCOTUS vacancy occur during the election year the President should NOT EVEN NOMINATE anyone until after the election, and if he did nominate someone, the Senate Judiciary Committee (which Senator Biden chaired) should consider not even taking up the nomination.
I will posit that if a vacancy had occurred and GWH Bush had nominated someone after losing the election, Joe Biden would have run out the clock until Jan 20th, and the Dem's reply to Republican complaints would have been "politics ain't beanbag."
As a famous community organizer once said, "Elections have consequences."
Prediction: It doesn’t get sent to the Senate. He is not actually impeached, but that won’t matter. It will be Spun that he was impeached, but the articles weren’t sent to the Senate because they are politically tainted or whatever. The low information crowd doesn’t know the difference.
I drafted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus once.....during my first year of practice (21 years ago)....and it was never filed.
That's how uncommon this is.
It was on this case and was all about the issue in footnote 2. Note that this was the first firm I worked for out of law school and my experience there was so negative that I left for a much better opportunity after 3 months of practice. It was neither of the firms listed on the opinion. After my boss succeeded in having a judge rule he had waived any and all atty/client privilege, the case was pulled from that firm.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1378377.html
Suffice to say, Mandamus (a/k/a Mandate) is an extreme action.
Read it- I'm not saying it is wrong on the law. I AM saying that the filings and rulings outlined ARE NOT mandatory. Again, I believe that the most likely scenario if ANY attempt to get SCOTUS involved is a recitation of "separation of powers" and a refusal to do anything.
Your prediction is already wrong. He has been impeached. I understand being hopeful and sticking up for the guy, but c'mon. What qualifies as impeachment is spelled out, specifically, in the Constitution.
Oh, and to get this back on the original topic, which I just noticed is RBG's fragile health , Trump and Mitch better be locked and loaded with at least three fully vetted possible nominees.
When they start using the same word or words, you’ll know they’re done running the focus groups on how to spin it. Even their own constitutional scholar came out and said it’s not impeachment unless it gets forwarded to the Senate. This is all politics and all spin.I was at 100% agreement with this, until I talked myself down to 99%. If (a big "if", because I haven't looked at the House rules) the House rules state or imply that being "impeached" requires some action to notify the Senate, then the House has not yet completed its process, and Trump is not yet impeached. The House could a) follow its current rules to complete its own defined process, or b) change its rules such that the vote itself completes the process.
I would agree that indeed she has that discretion concerning House business but she absolutely does not have the same discretion to dictate to the Senate on how to conduct their business. That's where she is going off the rails here.In VERY general terms, that mechanism is to force someone to do something they have a pre-existing obligation to do anyway. Basically a "do your job" kind of thing.
If the person has discretion whether to act, it is GENERALLY not appropriate for mandamus.
Here, it seems to me that the Speaker of the House has discretion in how the House business is handled. I don't see a mandate forcing her to send it to the Senate.
But, obviously, this is uncharted territory.
I was at 100% agreement with this, until I talked myself down to 99%. If (a big "if", because I haven't looked at the House rules) the House rules state or imply that being "impeached" requires some action to notify the Senate, then the House has not yet completed its process, and Trump is not yet impeached. The House could a) follow its current rules to complete its own defined process, or b) change its rules such that the vote itself completes the process.
I would doubt the language, of the House rules, would accommodate that line of thinking. It would need to purposefully put in the exception. If a rule exists, it probably along the lines of "After impeachment in the house, articles will be forwarded to the Senate." I have a hard time imagining that the language would say "Impeachment is not complete until the articles have been forwarded to the Senate." Also given how rabid the House Republicans are to please the president, if such language did exist, they would have spilled the beans minutes after Pelosi stated she was holding the articles.
I would agree that indeed she has that discretion concerning House business but she absolutely does not have the same discretion to dictate to the Senate on how to conduct their business. That's where she is going off the rails here.
Well, it can't be the Senate's business if it isn't introduced or formally provided to them.
As noted, this is a blank slate. McConnell may have the ability (if not the motivation) to introduce a resolution acknowledging the House vote on the articles of impeachment and adopting that vote as the trigger for the trial.
It was a public hearing. Votes were cast. Articles were adopted.
It would really be a bit remarkable to think that the Speaker of the House could basically have a pocket veto of articles of impeachment. That's what this is.
I. Whensoever the Senate shali receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to con- duct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.