I dunno, you lot seem pretty hung up about that Constitution of yours and its original intent.
Only when convenient. When it’s not, then we can redefine what the Constitution meas by terms such as “sole power” or " advice and consent".
The original intent of the Constitution is what I say it is.
This seems to be the thinking.
What ‘lot’ would that be? The ‘lot’ who thinks Supreme Court precedent doesn’t really prevent new Supreme Courts from changing what the Constitution means?
Can with start with which case is being heard by the court in this scenario? Donnie Dumbshit sues Congress?
The So-Called President Versus The United States Of America.
The Mysterious Case of Individual-One
It’s theoretically possible, in the same way that it’s theoretically possible for SCOTUS to decide the term “homicide” means “eating a banana.” The Supreme Court has always deferred to the political branches when the Constitution explicitly granted certain powers to them. So it doesn’t interfere with Congress’ authority to raise armies, to the POTUS’ authority to grant pardons, and so forth. The Constitution very explicitly grants impeachment power to Congress and there are 200 years of precedent indicating SCOTUS will not interfere. One of the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson was based on mean speeches he made about Congress; there’s never been one iota of evidence that this was deemed constitutionally infirm.
The same way it’s theoretically possible for a reality show star/dubiously successful brash businessman to be elected as President 
I think we have a partisan court, but for the court to intervene in a process that is so incontrovertibly political would forever diminish the Court in terms of being a credible arbiter. You absolutely would have court packing the moment Democrats took over the WH and Senate at the same time, though that could be a while from now. As partisan and ideological as the Court is, I find it hard to believe that 5 justices would agree to stop an impeachment from the bench. They could rule any number of ways on specific cases related to evidence or crimes related to whatever the House decides to impeach Trump on, but to go full on Scalia in this case would be the end of the SCOTUS and federal judiciary as we know it. I think most justices, save maybe Clarence Thomas, are aware of that.
A side note relevant to the topic:
I think it should be the other Supremes. The ones Diana Ross used to be in. At least that way we’d get a decent-sounding song and dance.
He’d just whine that, what with them being [del]negroes[/del]liberal, it’d be a biased trial. Not fair ! Witch hunt ! Sad !
Go to your rooms, kids. The Commander-in-Cheif is yelling at the terroists on TV again.
(Amusingly enough, Internet Explorer’s autocorrect is so insistent that “Cheif” is wrong that I have to actively fight it to stop it from fixing it, but the Very Stable Genius with the Best Words managed to fart it out while hunt-and-pecking on his iPhone.)
Wait… did he call a Sergeant a traitor? I know the guy deserted, but holy fuck!
The Greatest Republican Hero.
Is there really someone in the U.S. Federal Government with the title (however you spell it) “Chief Hostage Negotiator”?
He probably turned if off. After all, like every thing else he’s [del]done[/del] heard about, he’s the bestest speller in the history of the world and, like the Constitution, that damn autocorrect keeps getting in the way of what he really wants to do.
Besides, Bill Gates is a known librul so, FAKE SPELING!!
If so, the guy writes like Trump’s doctor
So he has every disease known to man? That would explain a lot…