Ideas?
Edit: I completely agree about the illegality of the PeachMints. I'm just trying to envision the next scene of the movie.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
No, it doesn't. Already discussed here and I also posted links to SCOTUS blog on the matter of impeachment. ANYONE can be presiding "judge", even YOU, IF SENATE elects to do so. SENATE, and ONLY Senate is the one setting rules for impeachment. and the role of a presiding judge is simply as an observer. As was proven this week when Leahy woke up from his drunken stupor to "rule", only to be easily overriden by Senate panel when his rule turned out to be as crooked as they all are.
Is it traditional for SCOTUS judge to preside? Sure. But doesn't trump the Senate rules on impeachment and installing anyone they feel like inseatd.
Stop posting BS. Better spend the 5 minutes to educate yourself on the matter.
Since there weren't ever exceptions to Senate doing something right and the Constitution simply posted to that effect. Read the SCOTUS blog on the issue, SCOTUS says SENATE can appoint anyone SINCE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO RESIDES. The role is purely as an OBSERVER, and noting else.
Its getting tiring posting FACTS and having all the legends still stick to their guns. READ THE FRIGGING SCOTUS BLOG. And then SENATE IMPEACHMENT RULES. Very clear explanation, just 5 minutes of your time. Instead of wasting your time on the keyboard.
No, SCOTUS simply described ONE option of impeachment. Since no one before went against it. BUT SENATE RULES allow ANYONE to PRESIDE save for the sitting VP since said VP may have to be the deciding vote in case of a 66-36 break and has a "vested" interest to be the 67th. The role is an OBSERVER IN ANY CASE, the person has absolutely no ability to interfere, nor rule, bathroom breaks are allowed and being awake is optional.
READ THE FUCKING RULES!!! Even SCOTUS BLOG SAYS AS MUCH.
This board has become a safe heaven for every uneducated and uninformed retard lately.
I am assuming this is the SCOTUS blog you are talking about? If so, this is hardly an authoritative source. Especially when the piece listed on the website is written by just some ho-hum law professor, who is not at all a definitive source on how the letter of the law need be interpreted. The argument that Senate rules trump the constitution is laughable. That could very easily just mean that the Senate could strip you of every right you had, without due process. You accuse me of peddling bullshit, but the letter of the law is clear, the impeachment trial needed Justice Roberts to preside.