I would argue that the Senate trial is a real court, as Its power and authority is defined by the Constitution. Some groups hold this in high regard until it comes to their case.
The POTUS Donald J Trump was impeached while still in office, its up to the Senate to decide if it is constitutional and it appears that a majority has decided it is. Let the trial proceed without crying over it being legit or not. Senators are free to abstain from the trial proceedings in protest (please do so if you believe so strongly).
And trials are not canceled just because the DA doesn’t think he has a 100% chance to win. The case needs to be laid out and reviewed for final judgement without option to appeal.
If Senators believe that the trial is unconstitutional, it’s not “crying” to object. It’s their duty. Let me be clear here: I personally think the impeachment and trial are both constitutional and appropriate, and I personally suspect that many Senators are hiding behind insincere arguments about constitutionality. However, the idea that Senators shouldn’t object to a procedure that they believe is unconstitutional strikes me as downright weird.
Also, note that Senate rules require all Senators to attend an impeachment trial, so Senators can’t abstain from the proceedings. Also note that per the Constitution, conviction requires a 2/3 majority of the members present, not the members voting, so an abstention is de facto a vote against conviction.
It’s always been part of the job for a member of Congress to decide on constitutionality. Let’s say somebody proposed a bill making it illegal to belong to a cult. I would expect a member to vote against such a bill on the basis that it’s unconstitutional. And if it was passed, I would expect the President to veto it for that same reason. The President and members of Congress all swear oaths to defend the Constitution.
The special role of the Supreme Court is to act as the final decision maker in cases where there is a dispute over the constitutionality of something.
Well, the British exhumed Oliver Cromwell’s body in 1661, convicted him and subjected him to a posthumous execution. (The king must’ve really hated that guy.)
So my guess is that we will see a lot of Republican Senators abstaining so they can spin it to their constituents as not voting for our against impeachment. But that they were defending the Constitution (that Trump wiped his ass on).
As I generally find, the ones who call out other people as lizard people are the actual lizards.
No, because of due process - the accused has to have the ability to defend themselves in a criminal trial. That’s why the founder of Enron died not guilty - he had been convicted at trial, filed an appeal, and died. Since the proceedings had not been finally completed, the conviction was set aside.
I can think of many circumstances where a civil court may need to determine criminal guilt (e.g. take out a life insurance policy and commit suicide but make it look like an accident…criminal fraud but a civil court still needs to determine if that happened to see if someone gets an insurance payout).
So, in the end, who decides whether the trial is constitutional or not? If its the Senate as a whole and the majority says its O.K., doesn’t that put an end to the argument? Its plain to see that that the whole argument is just a dodge to escape addressing the facts and avoid going on the record. Lack of a spine seems to be a qualification to be an elected Republican these days. What a shock.
The Republicans are caught up in a bind. A lot of people in their base are appalled by what Trump did and feel he should be punished. And a lot of other people in their base think Trump is the Chosen One and any Republican who doesn’t support him is a traitor. So Republican Senators are trying to avoid having to take a side for or against Trump, which is a difficult thing to do when you’re conducting a trial of him. Claiming you’re voting on vague constitutional issues is a way of avoiding have to declare a position.
As naita says, that’s not a determination of criminal guilt. That’s a determination of civil fraud, which is separate from criminal fraud. If the insurer can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that a insured committed civil fraud, that’s a ground to refuse to pay. If it goes to court, it’s tried on the civil standard (balance of probabilities), not the criminal standard (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). If the civil court accepts the insurance company’s position, and rules it doesn’t have to pay out, that doesn’t mean the insured is found to have committed a criminal offence.
Sure. But I don’t even know why this is part of the discussion in this thread.
Impeachment is not a criminal or civil court proceeding. It is a political act. So congress can do whatever it wants (within the rules they set for themselves to do this).
I guess my point is that the majority of the Senate voted to have a trial, so continuing to argue that it is not constitutional is akin to crying over the fact. They lost the vote, just like they lost the Presidential election. What is their recourse, have the Capitol stormed?
But thats my personal take on it. Otherwise I am on board with your assessment.
Issues of constitutionality in the the United States are inherently messy. The United States simply does not have a formalized system for preemptively and definitively resolving these issues. There is no Constitutional Court or Guardian Council.
What the U.S. has is a largely ad hoc set of institutional norms and traditions that have grown up over the centuries. One of those norms, which has existed from the founding, is that members of each branch, including individual Senators, are always supposed to keep issues of constitutionality in mind in all of their official actions. If a majority in a house of Congress undertakes actions which members of the minority believe are unconstitutional, they’re supposed to object. And there’s no clear-cut, formalized point at which they’re supposed to just sit down and shut up. The United States does not operate on the basis of democratic centralism, whereby once a majority vote is taken, it becomes illegitimate to continue protesting it.
Going back to my (hopefully absurd) example upthread, suppose a bill is introduced into the Senate outlawing the practice of Judaism. Surely, it would be legitimate for Senators to object to it on the grounds of it being a violation of the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Surely, if a majority of the Senate voted to bring it to the floor, it would still be legitimate for opponents to continue objecting to it on constitutional grounds, rather than limiting themselves to the evidence on whether the practice of Judaism is a threat to the republic.
There is also a norm that when constitutional questions cannot be otherwise resolved, courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, act as the arbiter of last resort. That norm is now deeply embedded into the theory and practice of law and government in the U.S. It’s still a norm, not something explicitly established by the Constitution, which has been and continues to be questioned on occasion. But a vital part of that norm is that individuals and organizations that disagree with a government action are free to protest that action even after a vote has been taken, and bring the issue to a court to decide.
Even after a court ruling, people, including Senators, are still allowed to “cry” about what they consider to be a badly decided case. Serious question: do you think everyone who disagrees about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citzens United should just shut up and accept it?
Clearly, in my opinion, there is a line, and at some point people have to accept that a decision has been made, that the issue has been adjudicated, and whatever controversial policy is now the law of the land. But, also in my opinion, just where that line is isn’t actually all that clear. What is one person’s valiant struggle against institutionalized injustice is another person’s whining about about not getting their way.
Very well put. Thank you for your detailed example and explanation.
I guess my concern is that “crybaby” politics (while always existing) has reached a point in this instance where violence has become an acceptable response. It needs to be called out, especially in the Senate by the Republican leadership.
And in the political calculus there is a reality: the group of the base that thinks “any Republican who doesn’t support him is a traitor” got new members elected this year over in the House, and are far, FAR likelier to show up to vote in a Senate or House primary for a Trumpriot challenger in 2 or 4 years…
…and to include people willing to come up and credibly threaten members, their families or associates with actual physical harm. I do worry about Si_Amigo’s concern about the normalization of that, as something that merits only a shaking of the head and words of disappointment but no real action.
Yes, that is what I was saying. These people are part of the Republican base.
But they’re not all of the Republican base. There are also a lot of Republican voters who are scared and want to feel safe. They’re scared of Mexicans and want a wall to protect them. They’re scared of black protestors and want the police to protect them. They’re scared that the Democrats are socialists who will take all of the possessions and want the Republicans to protect them. They want to live in an idealized Ozzie and Harriet world where nothing bad is happening.
When these people saw rioters running around inside the Capitol, they weren’t cheering them on. They just added right wing rioters to the list of things they’re afraid of. They want candidates who will protect them from those scary rioters.
That’s the dilemma Republican politicians are now facing. They have to tell their crazy base that they support the rioters. And tell their scared base that they will stop the rioters.