Can the Senate just refuse to recognize a House impeachment?

[UTUSN]

Just on the face of its being revenge/frivolous? Or convene the "trial" long enough to read/"consider" it and then vote it out?

[Walleye]

1. I think if it passes in the house the Senate has to take it up

We shall see how many congressmen in districts have voted for Biden vote for impeachment. When they impeached Clinton they just made him more popular for all time.

[Effete Snob]

6. No

Like any trial there can be a motion to dismiss, which has occurred in previous impeachments.


https://rollcall.com/2021/01/26/trump-conviction-unlikely-senate-impeachment-trial/

Trump conviction unlikely after most GOP senators vote to dismiss impeachment trial

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185

For example, in the 2010 trial of Judge Porteous, counsel for the impeached filed three motions
that were argued by the parties to the case: a motion to dismiss Article 1, a motion to dismiss
Article 2, and a motion to dismiss all articles because they aggregated multiple charges.

[wryter2000]

10. I'm not sure they could get it to pass in the House

They have a very small majority. 20 Republicans voted against censuring Adam Schiff the first time. If 6 or so Republicans decided they were sick of the bozos making them look stupid, they might vote no.

[Walleye]

12. I think you're probably right but you never know with these

[DemocraticPatriot]

18. Just like when the President makes a Supreme Court nomination, the Senate

has to take it up ????


According to my variation of the McTurtle rule,
if the Senate majority is of a different party,

they DON'T have to take up a frivolous impeachment from the House!

The House can scream about it, but that's about all.

Republicans already sailed on this ship in 2016,
when they refused to act on the Garland SC nomination.

[Walleye]

20. I agree. I don't think they should take up this bogus impeachment

[JohnSJ]

2. I don't see why not.

[UTUSN]

3. Wow!

[JohnSJ]

4. The House can choose whether to impeach or not, why can't the Senate choose whether to hold a trial

or not?

I don't think the Constitution prevents that

[Effete Snob]

5. It's like any other trial

There can be a motion to dismiss and the Senate can vote on that.

https://rollcall.com/2021/01/26/trump-conviction-unlikely-senate-impeachment-trial/

Trump conviction unlikely after most GOP senators vote to dismiss impeachment trial

[FBaggins]

9. Not quite true

There can’t be a motion to dismiss u til the Senate is sitting as a court (at which point the trial has begun).

The example you’ve provided was a (failed) attempt to say that the impeachment itself was unconstitutional because TFG was no longer president. It would be interesting to debate the constitutional issue raised by that attempt… but no parallel argument could be made for a sitting president.

The constitution (and senate rules) are pretty clear in this regard.

[Effete Snob]

11. No, there are pre-trial motions

Here's the manual....


https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185

For example, in the 2010 trial of Judge Porteous, counsel for the impeached filed three motions
that were argued by the parties to the case: a motion to dismiss Article 1, a motion to dismiss
Article 2, and a motion to dismiss all articles because they aggregated multiple charges.

[FBaggins]

14. Not that you've shown so far

Those motions were during the trial (not something that would avoid the House exhibiting the articles or having senators sworn in as a court). The only section in the manual that describes pre-trial options (an impeachment trial committee) explicitly excludes presidential impeachments.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. Why do people want Democrats to act like Republicans?

There was all this alarm that Turtle might do this when TFG was impeached the first time. No we’re suggesting Dems do the same thing?

[wryter2000]

8. They could vote overwhelmingly against it

And there would be debate, which could be fun.

I imagine some Senators would still vote to convict...Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz. It would be an illuminating list.

[jmowreader]

13. Even if they couldn't this would be a futile gesture

"Let's impeach Biden because of the Afghanistan pullout!"
Biden's defense team brings in the fact Trump set up the pullout and the clear success of that effort once it was dumped in Biden's lap: 125,000 people extracted from the country in two weeks, no usable military equipment left in Afghanistan and the only 13 people killed during the operation were killed by terrorists.

"Let's impeach Biden over the border!"
Biden's defense team brings in the real numbers: border encounters, where the Border Patrol captures and expels an illegal border crosser, are higher now than they ever were under Trump...and after Title 42 ended, even fewer people tried to sneak in than when it was in operation.

"Let's impeach Biden over the stolen election!"
Sixty lawsuits over this issue proved the election was not stolen.

I suspect that if they actually brought an impeachment to the House floor it would go down in flames. The disgust the Republicans have with the problem child from Georgia and the problem child from Colorado is reaching epic proportions.

Besides, if they brought an impeachment to the Senate floor it would go down in flames. It takes a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict...and the Republicans are the minority party in that chamber.

[Mad_Machine76]

15. Unlike with Schiff's censure

They’d actually have to put on a case in the Senate or finally just admit they don’t have one. Either way it would make them look dumb(er)

[Mad_Machine76]

16. But you just know

They’re ITCHING to impeach Biden for…..reasons.

[Mr.Bill]

23. I would be there are republican Senators

who would vote against it.

[Johonny]

17. If you saw Durham yesterday, the Senate would have a full

Trial and let Adam Schiff just lay into the GOP as the joke they were. The trial would be devastating to Republicans. Clinton's impeachment was a terrible show for the GOP. If anything it allows on national TV to show actual border crime rates, border policy, etc . . .

[Locutusofborg]

19. No one knows.

The Constitution says that the House has "sole power" to bring a Bill of Impeachment and the Senate has the "sole power" to try all impeachments. Tradition says that every Bill of Impeachment has been tried by the Senate but whether the Senate can refuse to take up a bill has never been tested.

[Bucky]

21. at some point there's gonna need to be actual charges and evidence.

[Mr.Bill]

22. When Trump was impeached Moscow Mitch

allowed no witnesses to testify and that kind of expedited things, so that's available.

[MichMan]

24. Who has the legal authority to force them ?

[tritsofme]

25. No one. It is clearly a political question, and no court would interject.

That’s different from what the majority feels it’s obligations are under Senate rules.

[FBaggins]

28. Yes a political question - but not a hard one

There's no downside to at least starting the trial and quickly voting it down. Plenty of impeachment trials have been very short (including some convictions)

But ignoring the clear constitutional implication that the senate needs to hold a trial? That could carry significant political implications...

... particularly in a year where we have several vulnerable senate incumbents.

[Bucky]

26. on second thought, maybe holding an impeachment trial makes strategic sense...

Let the country watch the Republicans... again... wasting the whole country's time on more bullshit.

That's kind of a thing with them. Let them keep building that 'brand' among the swing voters. Who here remembers 1998? Our Republican friends seem hellbent on making a sequel.

[tinymontgomery]

27. Just say it's up to the next senate to decide

by the vote of the people, works for Supreme Court nominees.