General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

82. No, that clause does not settle it

Mon Jan 25, 2021, 03:47 PM

Jan 2021

It simply says that he president or certain others shall be removed from office upon conviction. It does not address what happens to a former president upon conviction. And, as I've said, the fact that the Constitution permits the Senate to disqualify an impeached person from holding office in the future, and that penalty can only be applied after the impeached person is convicted - and if that impeached person was removed from office by virtue of the conviction - is obvious that the Senate retains its jurisdiction over impeachment even after the subject is no longer in office.

I think this all turns on the fact that Congress initiated the impeachment proceedings while Trump was still in office. The fact that they did means they can continue with the process even after his term has ended.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against trump because he is out of office. This is quite [View all] still_one Jan 2021 OP

That's very disappointing. n/t Laelth Jan 2021 #1

Sounds like a super catch 22 Walleye Jan 2021 #2

A president now has the right to grift big time. nt Irish_Dem Jan 2021 #16

Boo! soothsayer Jan 2021 #3

So he is above the law. Irish_Dem Jan 2021 #4

This pisses me too but Trump is really screwed as per his finaces Botany Jan 2021 #7

Beyond disappointing; this is a kick in the face for the rule of law. lagomorph777 Jan 2021 #5

So basically Snackshack Jan 2021 #6

Trump is still in deep shit ... Last Friday was not a good day for him Botany Jan 2021 #12

Well, the robber is no longer in the bank UpInArms Jan 2021 #13

It's not as bad as that. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #34

Is the supreme Court indicating the only remedy for presidential violations is being kicked out of.. uponit7771 Jan 2021 #44

No. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #52

Thx, I saw your well reasoned OP. I do think its bad because if they hear a future case right ... uponit7771 Jan 2021 #54

They probably could have moved faster but this case would never have been resolved during his term StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #55

Thx !!! uponit7771 Jan 2021 #56

Wait a minute. Wasn't the case filed before he was out of office? Liberal In Texas Jan 2021 #8

The SC used the criteria not when it was filed, but whether he is currently in office of not still_one Jan 2021 #15

So, that drunk driver C_U_L8R Jan 2021 #9

So SCOTUS strategy was to wait out Trump's reign of Terror in the WH to then deny Accountability msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #10

The judiciary and other institutions have held. Turin_C3PO Jan 2021 #33

On this account they have not held at all this is a total failure uponit7771 Jan 2021 #45

We're definitely not in a good place Turin_C3PO Jan 2021 #59

I'll retract my claim because of StarFish's post (link) but I think on its face it wasn't good for uponit7771 Jan 2021 #61

This decision in the context of now, cannot be dismissed as merely terrible in my mind. msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #57

No. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #58

Thank you for enlightening me.. msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #60

I misunderstood it at first, too StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #62

Wait. I just read on AP twitter feed, that SCOTUS dismissed ALL emoluments cases against Trump msfiddlestix Jan 2021 #71

The Court dismissed two cases StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #73

ALL preplanned (what a joke) bluestarone Jan 2021 #11

This is truly the scum pond that was put in place by REPUBLICANS, rushing through BComplex Jan 2021 #28

all a bdamomma Jan 2021 #36

This is bizarre and inexcusable unblock Jan 2021 #14

It is a terrible decision because it allows the same behavior for future administrations still_one Jan 2021 #19

And now if they hear any cases for future administrations they are playing politics uponit7771 Jan 2021 #47

Ally, ally in free! marble falls Jan 2021 #17

This is absurd. He either violated the clause, or he didn't. He should be held accountable Firestorm49 Jan 2021 #18

So, they've just erased a part of our Constitution. An SC with dictatorial powers was a bad idea. Crunchy Frog Jan 2021 #20

If he still has the money he stole while in office it's not moot StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #21

They are not even bothering to hear the case. Isn't that a dereliction of duty? still_one Jan 2021 #23

I think so, but I haven't read it yet StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #26

Thanks still_one Jan 2021 #31

It looks like the Court didn't issue an opinion. Just ordered the lower court to dismiss as moot StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #32

The complaint sought injunctive relief. So it became moot when he was out of office onenote Jan 2021 #38

Exactly StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #41

That's bullshit. If he is protected while in the office of the presidency, Vivienne235729 Jan 2021 #22

Exactly! Ligyron Jan 2021 #35

Yes! I was thinking the same thing that they need to expand SCOTUS now! Vivienne235729 Jan 2021 #37

Could the Biden team bluestarone Jan 2021 #24

Absolutely sickening. panader0 Jan 2021 #25

So this should make a case, gab13by13 Jan 2021 #27

We're back to the days of divine right of kings. Really. BSdetect Jan 2021 #29

Thanks to a few rw justices. triron Jan 2021 #39

this is BS given he's untouchable while he was in office & now out of office the SCOTUS refuses to onetexan Jan 2021 #30

Entirely predictable, which is why there were no dissents. onenote Jan 2021 #40

The Supreme Court wiped away four lower court decisions this morning because they have become moot: mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2021 #42

The justification of Trump being out of office intimates "out of office" is the only remidy ... uponit7771 Jan 2021 #43

Too bad it took so long to get to the SCOTUS. jalan48 Jan 2021 #46

They're already working on that lame54 Jan 2021 #48

Perhaps SCOTUS would like Congress to pass DeminPennswoods Jan 2021 #49

That would be helpful for everyone StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #63

You do realize... jmowreader Jan 2021 #50

No, that's not what the Court did at all StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #53

I don't think this is bad as it initially seemed StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #51

Maybe they'll dismiss the Senate impeachment trial too Polybius Jan 2021 #64

They can't do that. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #65

If they find rule that you can't have an impeachment trial for someone out of office they can Polybius Jan 2021 #66

Courts don't step in and dismiss an impeachment because they "find a rule" StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #67

No, I'm talking about this Polybius Jan 2021 #68

I agree that this is an iasue StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #72

Hypotactically, let's say Roberts agrees with Luttig Polybius Jan 2021 #78

No. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #79

Correct me if I'm wrong BGBD Jan 2021 #69

The court can't rule about whether anything Congress does IN an impeachment is constitutional StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #74

That seems BGBD Jan 2021 #81

No, that clause does not settle it StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #82

so we don't BGBD Jan 2021 #83

I don't understand your question StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #84

Has BGBD Jan 2021 #85

Not that I'm aware StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #86

So you can't prosecute while in office, or even after they leave office? So they have total lindysalsagal Jan 2021 #70

Not exactly StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #75

Thanks for clarification. lindysalsagal Jan 2021 #77

Time to expand the court. I think there's no filibuster for SC justices? aidbo Jan 2021 #76

Democrats don't have the votes to expand the Court StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #80

There were no dissents recorded to this decision. onenote Jan 2021 #87