emolument crimes committed while in office need not apply rules SCOTUS

UsualName · Jan 25, 2021

Buy1Sell2 said:
I think that this may portend what a SCOTUS decision would look like with regard to this second impeachment trial.

I was actually thinking that too. Weird.

piezoe · Jan 25, 2021

Buy1Sell2 said:
I think that this may portend what a SCOTUS decision would look like with regard to this second impeachment trial.

No Court will interfere with Congress's impeachment power. If the Court were to contemplate overstepping its bounds re impeachment, the present Congress would pass specific legislation forbidding it to interfere. [Should you naively think this not possible, read again your nations constitution.] I sincerely doubt any Court would want to invite the Congress to do that, as it could open the door to all manner of Court limiting statutes. It would be another Marbury vs. Madison moment. Last time, the Court prevailed because Congress did not stop it. This time would be different. The Congress would jealously guard its Constitutional rights when it comes to The Power of Impeachment.

jem · Jan 25, 2021

Says the "scientist" who pretends to practice law here without a license and has been wrong on just about every legal issue we have discussed.

How many times were you wrong about every law and law suit about Trump while he was in office. He finished his term.

By the way... I suspect piezoe is a good person too.
He just has to supplement is Social Security payments by posting hard left postions for lefty organizations. (and he also defends the FED) leading me to believe he works for a soros funded group.

I hope you are getting at least 50 cents a post.

piezoe said:
The cases brought in this regard were not brought on charges of "ethics" violation or violation of statutory law, but on violation of Constitutional law, the highest law of the land, assuming you don't consider laws handed down by the almighty, such as 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.' So far as I know, there are no statutes of limitation affecting Constitutional law, but we should ask our resident ET Lawyer, jem, for an opinion. [Sadly he is a good person, but a very bad lawyer.]

userque · Jan 25, 2021

El OchoCinco said:
Thing is if a case takes time and the person leaves office, it opens the door tio simply stall a case and make it disappear while the actual violations were still committed though.

I dont think you can escape ethics violations simply by leaving office if they carry significant penalties. If the penalty ONLY is removal from office then the clause has no teeth if someone can simply drag the case on while they get rich and simply have their term end.

I read the case, saw the video, and researched constitutional remedies/punishments for violations. Haven't read the decision.

IMO:

I'm thinking SC believes this is a very political clause, and it should have been an impeachment, and not in the courts; and that bringing it to the courts was an attempt to circumvent the impeachment threshold/process.

smallfil · Jan 25, 2021

jem said:
Says the "scientist" who pretends to practice law here without a license and has been wrong on just about every legal issue we have discussed.

How many times were you wrong about every law and law suit about Trump while he was in office.

By the way... I suspect piezeo is a good person too.
He just has to supplement is Social Security payments by posting hard left postions for lefty organizations. (and he also defends the FED) leading me to believe he works for a soros funded group.

I hope you are getting at least 50 cents a post.

Didn't ExGoper admit he worked for Soros? I think he posted one time on Twitter that he did. These ET trolls trying to sound like smart guys when we know full well they are paid hacks and nothing else. Funny when they get blown out of the water when their lies are debunked over and over.

userque · Jan 25, 2021

piezoe said:
No Court will interfere with Congress's impeachment power. If the Court were to contemplate overstepping its bounds re impeachment, the present Congress would pass specific legislation forbidding it to interfere. [Should you naively think this not possible, read again your nations constitution.] I sincerely doubt any Court would want to invite the Congress to do that, as it could open the door to all manner of Court limiting statutes. It would be another Marbury vs. Madison moment. Last time, the Court prevailed because Congress did not stop it. This time would be different. The Congress would jealously guard its Constitutional rights when it comes to The Power of Impeachment.

Agree.

It was, in effect, dismissed on "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" grounds, imo, and without reading the decision.