« "Thereof," legalese, and the readability of the U.S. Constitution | Main | JOTWELL: Steinman on Engstrom on Lone Pine Orders »

Saturday, February 08, 2020

Ending The Age of Impeachment

One thing I'm curious about is how the arguments in the High Court of Impeachment will resonate in the Supreme Court. In part, this is because the Chief Justice connects the two bodies. He heard a lot and probably learned a lot in the Senate, but who knows what he took away from that.

Let me give an example. The President's lawyers, especially Ken Starr, talked a lot about ending the age of impeachment. But in the litigation challenging congressional subpoenas for the President's tax returns, Judge Rao's dissenting opinion in the DC Circuit argued that the only way the House could obtain those records was through an impeachment investigation. If the President makes Judge Rao's argument in the Supreme Court, that would be inconsistent with Ken Starr's plea to the Senate. Accepting Judge Rao's view would mean more impeachment inquiries, as there would be no other way for the House to investigate individual official wrongdoing. There is nothing inherently wrong with more impeachment investigations. My only point is that then the President could be exposed to the argument that he can't have it both ways.

Posted by Gerard Magliocca on February 8, 2020 at 08:08 AM | Permalink

Comments

"My only point is that then the President could be exposed to the argument that he can't have it both ways."

Impeachment Manager Schiff pointed this out during the trial when his lawyers were making one argument on the floor, another argument in court ... on the same day.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 11, 2020 12:54:24 PM

FWIW, neither Trump nor the SG is making Rao's arguments in the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Marty Lederman | Feb 8, 2020 4:56:38 PM

Just not to forget, it is not solely impeachment, but, mainly, for legislative purposes. Typically, every issue, may, or has to do with legislation ( future one). Once defined so by Congress, they have overwhelming power, to issue subpoenas for every record, provided that it is relevant of course.

Recently, in the Circuit of Columbia, Trump v. Mazars, here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/20C16C3C5721030C85258490004DE33C/$file/19-5142-1810450.pdf

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Feb 8, 2020 9:25:18 AM

Post a comment