General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDershowitz losing his mind again.
Not so fast. Our nonlawyer president may be closer to the truth than his lawyer critics. In fact, the Lawfare blog noted that Trumps suggestion of resorting to the Supreme Court to appeal an impeachment did not come out of nowhere. ... Alan Dershowitz recently made an argument along the same lines, writing in an essay on The Case Against Impeaching Trump that [w]ere a president to announce that he refused to accept the actions of the Senate in voting for his removal and that he would not leave office unless the Supreme Court affirmed his removal, the people might well agree with him.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446394-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment
hlthe2b
(102,359 posts)Dershowitz and Barr will have about the same level of professional respect when all is said and done.
Karadeniz
(22,572 posts)in jail.
yellerpup
(12,254 posts)That will shut him up. He's diverting on Trump's behalf now. Make him put his energy into defending himself.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)Although I guess it could be true that Dershowitz just didn't know that his travel companions were fucking children.
GemDigger
(4,305 posts)I read the whole, sickening document, complete with accounts from the witnesses. As soon as the Epstein thing got brought back into life and legal jeopardy, it got pulled from the internet. Epstein is a pedophile.
yellerpup
(12,254 posts)I remember the case although not in detail. There were others who participated with Epstein's underage girls on his infamous jet. So nasty; the whole thing stinks.
yellerpup
(12,254 posts)he knew and participated. This case has been through many changes in the last few years.
marble falls
(57,204 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)That will shut him up.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)First, he suggests that Justices Breyer and Souter said that a president can appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court, quoting them supposedly making this argument as if it this claim has some legal merit.
However, not only do neither of the quotes he relies upon have any binding legal authority, they both concern conviction and removal by the Senate, not impeachment. (Dershowitz, unsurprisingly, muddled his argument and conveniently edited Justice Souter's quote, probably in order to confuse the issue). Moreover, he conveniently edits one of the quotes to better suit his purpose.
Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee, echoed his predecessor: If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results judicial interference might well be appropriate.
Justice White's quote came in a footnote to his concurrence in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), so it has no legal significance or precedential value. Neither does Justice's Souter's comment, which he made in his concurrence in Nixon v. U.S. (1993) (a different Nixon, an impeached judge, not Richard). His full quote is: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " `a bad guy,' " judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence."
Neither of these comments have the force of law and neither of these Justices is currently on the Supreme Court (White is deceased, Souter is retired). But more important, these comments refer not to impeachment, but to trial and conviction, In this instance, it is very unlikely that the Republican Senate would convict Trump at all, much less do so on a buggaboo.
Trump didn't threaten to appeal conviction and removal. He said he would appeal impeachment. Nothing in Dershowitz's tortured and misleading argument supports his claim that an impeachment can be appealed - (he also doesn't offer any valid legal basis for claiming a conviction and removal can be appealed, either - footnotes in concurrences aren't law).
In other words, once again, Dershowitz is full of shit.