Still not getting it.Right but voting 'not guilty' isn't the same as jury nullification. I'm pretty sure that the Senate voting jury nullification on impeachment hearings would cause a rift in reality or something, like dividing by zero.
The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.
Sorry, I was under the impression that if a jury was voting to nullify the proceeding, they actually say 'we're nullifying this, because we don't agree with the law as stated/how this is presented', not 'we know dude's guilty but we're voting innocent, just letting you know'.How do you think jury nullification works in the courts? It's not like they have a ballot that says "guilty, innocent, nullify". It's just as hal2kilo says, voting innocent when you know the party is guilty because you don't like the law or the process is jury nullification.
Sorry, I was under the impression that if a jury was voting to nullify the proceeding, they actually say 'we're nullifying this, because we don't agree with the law as stated/how this is presented', not 'we know dude's guilty but we're voting innocent, just letting you know'.
I know functionally what jury nullification is.
Is it the latter?
The Senate gets to decide the rules of the trial. They are allowed to decide who the jury is, it can be the entire Senate, but it does not have to be. In the past it has always been either the entire Senate, or a specific committee, but it is entirely possible that the GOP will decide to hand pick their jurors. It is never been done, but it would take a SCOTUS decision to say it was not Constitutional, and that would probably take more than a year to work it's way through the courts. It is entirely possible the GOP will do some such thing just to delay the entire thing until after the election.
I fully expect some chicanery from Moscow Mitch.
Then I got edumacated. I assumed nullification was established enough as a 'thing' to essentially be 'option 3: break in case of emergencies' rather than just a weird mutation of 'not guilty'.
Where are you getting this info? It's possible to interpret the Constitution that way. In the past, several votes have not included much of the Senate, but the Constitution states a supermajority of those present. I am not sure the Senate could keep those who want to show up and vote from doing so.
But does '2/3rds of senators present' mean 'of the three senators we picked to be on this voting committee' or does it mean 'of all current senators employed by the US government'?From my quick non-lawyerly look at it the clause says someone will not be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3rds of Senators present so it doesn't sound like they can pick a jury to do it for them.
Can you even nullify as the Senate though? And wouldn't that normally require *everyone* to vote for jury nullification (rather than a hung jury), can you really consider it jury nullification on a 2/3rds vote? I feel like the 'nullify' votes would just be abstained... a full nullification would be if literally everyone abstained.
He will be so relieved of not having to be answerable to the folks of whom he supposedly represented yet so terrified of what awaits him over at SDNY Courts.
But does '2/3rds of senators present' mean 'of the three senators we picked to be on this voting committee' or does it mean 'of all current senators employed by the US government'?
Huh, so all but 4 Republicans (or whatever would give the Democrats the 2/3rds... i guess all but 20 or so?) could simply sit out and hand the Democrats the vote.A quorum is required by the Constitution for the Senate to do business and convicting the president certainly sounds like Senate business.
EDIT for accuracy: The constitution defines a quorum as a majority of members, so they would need at least 51 members as it stands right now.
A quorum is required by the Constitution for the Senate to do business and convicting the president certainly sounds like Senate business.
EDIT for accuracy: The constitution defines a quorum as a majority of members, so they would need at least 51 members as it stands right now.
I would agree with you, but if McConnell disagrees there is little that anyone can do to say otherwise, and we all know that he will make most any argument if it fits his current agenda, and once he decides it does not appear that there is any way to override his decision.
In Nixon v. United States (1993),the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary could not review such proceedings, as matters related to impeachment trials are political questions and could not be resolved in the courts.
SCOTUS can absolutely decide if the rules stipulated in the Constitution for conducting Senate business were followed or not, which applies to all proceedings, not just impeachment.
After all if SCOTUS can't do that then Congress can have a single member from each chamber decree new laws at their leisure. If the president vetoes them then those same two members declare it overridden.
Hm...Huh, so all but 4 Republicans (or whatever would give the Democrats the 2/3rds... i guess all but 20 or so?) could simply sit out and hand the Democrats the vote.
The fact that Trump wants Mitch to turn it into a circus specifically to hurt the Democrats in the next election cycle should give everyone a big fat clue as to what his motivations were regarding the Bidens.Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:
Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial
President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.www.cnn.com
Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.
But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.
So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.
I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.
Of course Trump wants a circus, that's how the reality show formula works.Here's a clue of what to expect in the Senate:
Growing divide between Trump and McConnell over impeachment trial
President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like, CNN has learned.www.cnn.com
Evidently, McConnell wants to give the dems a little time to present their case, then vote to dismiss, without calling any witnesses.
But Trump wants the opposite: to call Hunter Biden, Schiff and the whistle-blower and turn it into a circus.
So it's either going to be quick or a total circus.
I think it will hurt Trump more if he gets his way and it's the latter.
The fact that Trump wants Mitch to turn it into a circus specifically to hurt the Democrats in the next election cycle should give everyone a big fat clue as to what his motivations were regarding the Bidens.
They must have been scared over the moderates defecting over it. Now GOP can argue that not even the Democrats buy it for either Ukraine or Trump-Russia. If it's not added sometime before it goes to the Senate, they show their cowardliness again. It's Obama during 2016 all over again.
Also...
Just here to tear down the Democrats, huh? Pelosi had the votes to send it to the Senate long ago. What to call it is the difference between potayto & potahto. The trade vote just gives Trump one less thing to whine about.
More everything!It's hard to keep track. Either they dragged their feet on impeachment after having grounds for years or they are moving too quickly and need to go through the court to litigate Trump's obstruction. Either we haven't been able to hear the full case because witnesses were disallowed by Democrats or witnesses who defied subpoenas are ok because it's too expensive to get representation. Either the whole thing is a sham because they are tying up Congress from doing their job or they aren't taking it seriously because they bothered to get some business done at the same time.
Just here to tear down the Democrats, huh? Pelosi had the votes to send it to the Senate long ago. What to call it is the difference between potayto & potahto. The trade vote just gives Trump one less thing to whine about.