Follow Dr. Waddy

Submit your email address below to receive updates on new articles, radio interviews, videos, and posts. Don't miss out!

Monday, September 30, 2019

Brett Kavanaugh: The Deciding Vote on Impeachment?



Friends, Frank Miele at RealClearPolitics has a habit of churning out very thought-provoking, insightful articles.  Check out his latest:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/30/a_politically_motivated_impeachment_is_no_laughing_matter_141366.html

Miele makes a very good point that few pundits have raised: impeachment, like everything else Congress does or may do, is subject to judicial review.  There's an old saying that a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich," which is a way of making the point that indicting someone (usually via a grand jury) is easy -- but convicting them in a court of law is hard.  Impeachment is like an indictment.  Congress can, by all appearances, impeach the President for ANY reason.  Then there would be a trial in the Senate.  As we all know, the Senate is virtually certain to lack the two-thirds majority required to convict President Trump...but the likelihood is that the matter will never get that far.  First, the House Democrats would have to keep their nerve and pass articles of impeachment.  Don't bet on that!  Even if they did, as Miele points out, their actions would be subject to judicial review.  The Trump administration could argue that the impeachment vote is null and void, because Congress did not impeach based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," but based on a strong dislike of Donald Trump, or based on a flawed process.  Would the Supreme Court agree?  Who can say, but it's possible, and given the dynamics of the court it would probably be the Left's bete noire, Brett Kavanaugh, who would cast the critical vote in any impeachment case...  Wouldn't that be...poetic justice?  Stay tuned!

8 comments:

  1. Dr. Waddy: What an intriguing article and commentary. Since one of SCOTUS's prime duties is to say what the Constitution means, it is clearly authorized to opine on Constitutional issues. I do wonder why the Clinton defense team did not venture this but perhaps they feared the Supreme Court at that time, or they simply knew that he would survive a Senate vote characterized by the disdainful Charles Schumer.

    But, if such an historical decision were to be argued today , then a decision by a lawful Supreme Court might carry much weight. Let the lawless left beware; they do not dominate!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack beat me to it, grin. Totally agree...On another note, I have a bet with my husband that the so called whistleblower will not show up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, Jack. I don't recall if the Supreme Court ever waded into the Clinton matter. I think they might have, at least on the issue of whether the President was required to cooperate fully. I certainly think it's possible that specific articles of impeachment could be contestable, though, especially if they don't correlate directly to a crime.

    Linda, so you think the whistleblower won't show? I doubt that. My guess would be that he's "all in" with the current plot. Whether his identity will leak is an interesting question... The genesis of the complaint will definitely be thoroughly investigated too. Did a team of lawyers write the complaint? Was information about the call shared out in violation of the law? There are plenty more shoes to drop...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still stand with my comment about that...however, I also think it is a "she". Sure seems funny to me that they will be holding a CLOSED session...interesting...I agree, Dr. Waddy, plenty of shoes will drop. No doubt.

      Delete
  4. Dr. Waddy and Linda: Why this is one right merry mess, though I do not mean to say by that that the principles are not clear. Wow, I never thought of it and I haven't seen it in the Johnson or Clinton impeachments but I think it very plausible. Well, the 1998 left thought their Schumer inspired coterie sufficient to thwart justice. No need for the Judiciary!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr.Waddy and Linda: And in their negligence they failed to provide precedence for the prevention of judicial review of their fevered purely political impeachment crusade. Oh my, they are human after all, aren't they. Yes, very much so!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Linda -- you think the whistleblower is a she, huh? Could be. These are modern times, so not every lady is ladylike! It's looking like the House Democrats may have coordinated with the whistleblower, which of course will not come as a surprise. Who wrote the complaint? Stay tuned!

    Jack -- oh yes, the Dems and liberals are human. Very human. Their capacity for human error is virtually limitless. How else can we explain Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? I'm often awestruck by how incompetent and self-destructive they can be. Remember, they all have their own private agendas -- and the media has the additional motivation of ratings and advertising dollars, competing with its ideological imperatives. By no means are our enemies all moving in lockstep towards the promised land. We must exploit their confusion and their myopia mercilessly!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blogger really needs a thumbs up or like button, lol.

    ReplyDelete