They are. They're letting the Democrats drag this this out because all it does is further prove that the Democrats do not have confidence in their own case.
Also, Congress is currently in recess. So they CAN'T do anything right now until the regular session of 2020 begins or Trump calls a special session, which honestly, given how well this is playing for him, isn't going to happen.
So I say we all kick back with our favorite Christmas beverage, and watch the snow (and the salt) fly.
After the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, their function and involvement is DONE. Neither "Articles of Impeachment" nor "Impeachment Managers" OR ANYTHING ELSE are required/needed for the Senate to go forward under ANY schedule or time frame or rules. MCConnell could dispatch this tonight.
NIXON v. UNITED STATES et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 91-740. Argued October 14, 1992 -- Decided January 13, 1993
After petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against him and presented them to the Senate. Following proceedings pursuant to Senate Rule XI--which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and to report that evidence to the full Senate--the Senate voted to convict Nixon, and the presiding officer entered judgment removing him from his judgeship. He then commenced the present suit for a declaratory judgment and reinstatement of his judicial salary and privileges, arguing that, because Senate Rule XI prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings, it violates the first sentence of the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, which provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The District Court held that his claim was nonjusticiable, i. e., involved a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause is nonjusticiable. Pp. 3-13.
(a) A controversy is nonjusticiable where there is "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . ." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217. These two concepts are not completely separate; the lack of judicially manageable standards may strengthen the conclusion that there is a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch. Pp. 3-4.
(b) The language and structure of Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose--that the Senate's members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two thirds vote is required to convict, and that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried--the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the common sense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone. Nixon's attempts to negate the significance of "sole" are unavailing, while his alternative reading of the word as requiring impeachment only by the full Senate is unnatural and would impose on the Senate additional procedural requirements that would be inconsistent with the three express limitations that the Clause sets out. A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. Pp. 4-11.
(c) Justiciability is also refuted by (1) the lack of finality inherent in exposing the country's political life--particularly if the President were impeached--to months, or perhaps years, of chaos during judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings, or during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated, and by (2) the difficulty of fashioning judicial relief other than simply setting aside the Senate's judgment of conviction. See Baker, supra, at 210. Pp. 11-12.
(d) A holding of nonjusticiability is consistent with this Court's opinion in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486. Unlike the situation in that case, there is no separate constitutional provision which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the word "try" in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. While courts possess power to review legislative action that transgresses identifiable textual limits, the word "try" does not provide such a limit on the authority committed to the Senate. Pp. 12-13.
Held: Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause is nonjusticiable. Pp. 3-13.
Nah, this is perfect for us. Ball is still in their court, so voters will still see this as a democrat-run impeachment. They get blamed for dragging it out
Yeah I honestly think this is just fine, look at impeachment polls. Can you imagine if Nancy keeps this shit up for 6 months? People will start asking why not and it'll seem like partisian bullshittery (which it is)
Suddenly Lindsey 2.0 reappears. At this point, I think he is just following orders. What a hoot -- he is still somebody's errand boy. Someone else is pulling the strings and doing the timing and sequencing.
Exactly, Lindsey comment is a smoke screen to please the base only. All talk but no action.
When the IG report was released with all the damning evidence of FBI malpractices why is Lindsey not hauling the bad actors like Comedy in from of the Senate to explain their action? Where is the Senate oversight on this? Eh! Graham?
Then do it!
ffs..do something already then you fucking cowards!!
the democrats and leftists keep shitting all over our systems and NOTHING is happening to them. they are seeing how far they can push it
"HURR HURR DO SOMETHING COWARDS"
They are. They're letting the Democrats drag this this out because all it does is further prove that the Democrats do not have confidence in their own case.
i guess so in a way....
Also, Congress is currently in recess. So they CAN'T do anything right now until the regular session of 2020 begins or Trump calls a special session, which honestly, given how well this is playing for him, isn't going to happen.
So I say we all kick back with our favorite Christmas beverage, and watch the snow (and the salt) fly.
She is refusing so stop talking and go ahead. End this nonsense asap
After the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, their function and involvement is DONE. Neither "Articles of Impeachment" nor "Impeachment Managers" OR ANYTHING ELSE are required/needed for the Senate to go forward under ANY schedule or time frame or rules. MCConnell could dispatch this tonight.
NIXON v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 91-740. Argued October 14, 1992 -- Decided January 13, 1993
After petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against him and presented them to the Senate. Following proceedings pursuant to Senate Rule XI--which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and to report that evidence to the full Senate--the Senate voted to convict Nixon, and the presiding officer entered judgment removing him from his judgeship. He then commenced the present suit for a declaratory judgment and reinstatement of his judicial salary and privileges, arguing that, because Senate Rule XI prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings, it violates the first sentence of the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, which provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The District Court held that his claim was nonjusticiable, i. e., involved a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause is nonjusticiable. Pp. 3-13.
(a) A controversy is nonjusticiable where there is "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . ." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217. These two concepts are not completely separate; the lack of judicially manageable standards may strengthen the conclusion that there is a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch. Pp. 3-4.
(b) The language and structure of Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose--that the Senate's members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two thirds vote is required to convict, and that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried--the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the common sense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone. Nixon's attempts to negate the significance of "sole" are unavailing, while his alternative reading of the word as requiring impeachment only by the full Senate is unnatural and would impose on the Senate additional procedural requirements that would be inconsistent with the three express limitations that the Clause sets out. A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. Pp. 4-11.
(c) Justiciability is also refuted by (1) the lack of finality inherent in exposing the country's political life--particularly if the President were impeached--to months, or perhaps years, of chaos during judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings, or during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated, and by (2) the difficulty of fashioning judicial relief other than simply setting aside the Senate's judgment of conviction. See Baker, supra, at 210. Pp. 11-12.
(d) A holding of nonjusticiability is consistent with this Court's opinion in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486. Unlike the situation in that case, there is no separate constitutional provision which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the word "try" in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. While courts possess power to review legislative action that transgresses identifiable textual limits, the word "try" does not provide such a limit on the authority committed to the Senate. Pp. 12-13.
Held: Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause is nonjusticiable. Pp. 3-13.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html
Linsey 2.0 has been reactivated. Balls found, patriot mode engaged, Nancy Slayer operational.
Nah, this is perfect for us. Ball is still in their court, so voters will still see this as a democrat-run impeachment. They get blamed for dragging it out
Yeah I honestly think this is just fine, look at impeachment polls. Can you imagine if Nancy keeps this shit up for 6 months? People will start asking why not and it'll seem like partisian bullshittery (which it is)
Suddenly Lindsey 2.0 reappears. At this point, I think he is just following orders. What a hoot -- he is still somebody's errand boy. Someone else is pulling the strings and doing the timing and sequencing.
Exactly, Lindsey comment is a smoke screen to please the base only. All talk but no action.
When the IG report was released with all the damning evidence of FBI malpractices why is Lindsey not hauling the bad actors like Comedy in from of the Senate to explain their action? Where is the Senate oversight on this? Eh! Graham?