Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMcConnell can pull another 'Merrick Garland' and refuse to try the impeachment of Trump.
Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?
...
But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senates exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try, which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the Houses sole power. The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own sole power, to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules reinterpreted at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment trial fully consistent with current rulesor even any trial at all. A chairs ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.
...
The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a trial, and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senates sole power to try means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rules call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight...
more...https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case
By Bob Bauer
Monday, January 21, 2019
...
But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senates exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try, which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the Houses sole power. The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own sole power, to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules reinterpreted at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment trial fully consistent with current rulesor even any trial at all. A chairs ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.
...
The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a trial, and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senates sole power to try means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rules call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight...
more...https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case
Bob Bauer served as White House Counsel to President Obama. In 2013, the President named Bob to be Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. He is a Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, as well as the co-director of the university's Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1061 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
McConnell can pull another 'Merrick Garland' and refuse to try the impeachment of Trump. (Original Post)
progressoid
Nov 2019
OP
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)1. He technically can
but, i think he's already said he would have a trial. That said, I'm sure he'd try to rig it to be as pro Trump as possible.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)2. Perhaps by using the trial to focus on the Bidens
...trotting out all the conspiracy theories and outright lies to smear Joe and Hunter.
OnDoutside
(19,956 posts)3. I hope he does. Already 49% of voters think Trump should be impeached and removed, BEFORE the open
hearings. There's potential for that to grow significantly. For McConnell to deny a trial would hand Democrats a fantastic PR stick to hit Republicans with.