Senate upholds constitutionality of Trump impeachment trial after 6 Republicans vote with Democrats

[sandensea]

Source: USA Today

The Senate voted largely along party lines Tuesday to uphold the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, allowing the proceedings to move forward.

Six Republican senators joined Democrats in rejecting an effort by the former president’s lawyers to dismiss the case. The team had argued the trial was unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office.

The decision means the trial will resume noon Wednesday with the nine Democratic House impeachment managers presenting evidence that the then-president incited the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/09/trump-impeachment-trial-sides-debate-if-trial-constitutional/4422669001/

[Laelth]

1. Good.

Now it’s on the record that the Senate trial is constitutional. This means Republicans should not be able to hide behind the “unconstitutional” defense when they have to vote on the merits of the case (although many of them probably will).

-Laelth

[chriscan64]

17. I think it is weird that they think they're voting on whether something is Constitutional or not.

Even weirder that they had the same vote twice. What they are really voting on is whether to continue or not, each would be Constitutional. Framing it as a vote on Constitutionality is GOP hogwash, trying to burn the phrase into the minds of the public. It is and always was Constitutional. Your last point is well taken, they will disregard this vote and use the unconstitutional defense, which makes this vote even more meaningless than it already was, twice.

[Laelth]

21. It's weird. I agree.

As far as I know, constitutionality is the purview of the courts, generally, and the SCOTUS, finally.

That said, this vote took away the “unconstitutional” defense IN THE SENATE. As far as the “unconstitutional” argument is concerned, it is now moot in the Senate and should not be available as a defense. Trump’s lawyers are going to have to argue something else. What that will be is another question. Who knows? All we know now is that “unconstitutionality” IS NOT an available defense, as per the Senate’s 56-44 vote on that question today.

-Laelth

[riversedge]

2. Trump is only making two arguments at the #ImpeachmentTrial and they just disposed of one of them.

I have not been able to watch most of it. anyone know what the other trump argument is??




House Impeachment managers yielded back a quarter of their time and won the day handily.

Trump is only making two arguments at the #ImpeachmentTrial and they just disposed of one of them.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

[sandensea]

4. From what I saw: that this "is political" and that this "makes us look bad to the rest of the world"

Rather rich - coming from a party that has done nothing but those two things for over 20 years now.

[durablend]

15. "I WON I WON I WON I'M THE PRESIDENT!!!"

"STOLEN ELECTION!!!!" (tho maybe not)

[Budi]

3. Can Trump take this to the SC at some point?

Like if he happens to be impeached?

[Jedi Guy]

7. Don't think so, no. Impeachment is a political proceeding rather than a legal one, far as I know.

I don't think SCOTUS can weigh in on it at all, but I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong.

[KS Toronado]

16. Any friend of Yoda deserves high praise.

light sabers.......

[sandensea]

8. He can try - but I doubt they'd hear it

Except for Scalito and Mr. Pubic Hair, no one in the Court seems interested in bailing out His Orangeness.

[cstanleytech]

18. SCOTUS has no oversight in how the Senate conducts impeachment trials nor can a

conviction after being impeached be overturned by them or anyone not even the President.

[FBaggins]

20. He doesn't need to

Despite the title, the Senate didn't "uphold" the constitutionality. It merely rejected a motion to dismiss the case.

Trump doesn't need to appeal the decision (nor could he at this point). He just needs to wait for a final vote against conviction (which needs many fewer votes than he just received from those who wanted to dismiss).

If something changes and he's actually convicated... THEN he could theoretically make the argument in court. His chances would be extraordinarily slim (even with the 6-3 SCOTUS) - but there's little reason to think that it will happen.

[cstanleytech]

22. Only way I see Trump being convicted before the Senate is if roughly 30 Republican Senators do not

show up for the final vote.

[FBaggins]

23. Doesn't seem plausible to me

The only reason it would happen would be if we imagine a scenario where they want him convicted... but they're worried about losing support if they actually vote to convict.

That assumes that there's some reason to believe that they wouldn't lose the same support by not showing up and allowing him to be convicted that way.

I can't imagine any of them thinking that was the case.

[jmowreader]

25. Nope.

That's not to say he won't try it, but the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over impeachments.

[List left]

5. 12% of Rebublicon Senators vote to uphold constitutionality of Trump impeachment trial.

A significant number. Not enough, but "largely along party lines" diminishes the importance.

[ShazzieB]

6. Who was the 6th Republican?

The article gives a list, but there are only 5 names on it:

"Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania joined Senate Democrats in killing Paul's motion."

[BlueStater]

9. Bill Cassidy. n/t

[sandensea]

10. Mr. Pancake: Louisiana's Bill Cassidy

He flipped on this from his melodramatic "Soviet show trial" rant just two days ago - and will likely flip right back when it comes to convict.

[pandr32]

11. This is encouraging

I am happy to see this--is it possible that with the damning evidence we may have them vote against 45?

[sandensea]

13. If God Himself came down with footage of Cheeto green-lighting a self-coup

and promising to make Mike Lindell the head of a Trump-stapo, most of these Repugs still wouldn't vote to convict.

"I don't see nuthin' wrong with that," they'd bellow.

[pandr32]

19. But that would mean God endorsed it

After all--HE does not appear for just anyone.
I do get your drift, though.

[Roc2020]

12. There is still a glimmer

of hope more Republicans will grow a spine.

[sandensea]

14. They'd rather sell their mothers

Some probably already have.

"Son, how could you!?!"

"You never heard of free enterprise, momma?"

[bucolic_frolic]

24. I'm surprised we're not hearing an argument for executive privilege

It's straight out of Machiavelli. The Sovereign can do whatever he wants, say what he wants. The rioters who attended didn't have to follow his orders, they just ran with it.

I'm not siding with Trump, but I am saying they have possible defense material.