Where is this neutral body? Half of the court was explicitly groomed to take a partisan stance. They even have the ability to choose their own cases, plus a shadow docket.
If Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh voted to hear it it would be demonstrable, once and for all, that they are the greatest partisan hacks ever to sit on the bench. IMO
Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.
And they do not have immunity for unofficial acts, which do seem to be many of the things that that Donald Trump is being charged for. The fact that many of the top comments here don't mention this tells me that we are grips of a partisan hysteria. Fortunately, the court is not, and one 'conservative' judge was in the dissent, and one 'liberal' judge concurred with the majority.
My guess is that many of the justices thought that granting certiorari at a critical moment in the public debate might provide a convenient excuse for Congress to sit on its hands.
Sotomayor and Ginsburg have both previously signaled their willingness to reexamine the precedent, yet neither wrote a dissent. If Congress does nothing I'd expect SCOTUS to revisit the issue in the next couple of years.
Rehnquist characterized his role as presiding over the Clinton impeachment trial by quoting from Iolanthe (A comic opera): "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well." My impression of Roberts presiding over the Trump impeachment trial is that he tried to emulate Rehnquist.
There's plenty to criticize about the Trump trial, but I don't see how you can pin it on Roberts. It was the Senate that voted to not call witnesses, not Roberts deciding that. Since the Senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" (US Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6), it's not even clear Roberts had the ability to override that decision. I'm not sure what you're talking about with things not being recorded. You can find the entire trial on YouTube.
For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision.
But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump.
It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.
It really is weird. Normally the supreme court only hears appeals, so it only rules on matters of law. It wouldn't normally rule on matters of fact, wouldn't normally call witnesses, and wouldn't normally have a jury.
reply