This sham impeachment trial is going to go this way in my opinion.
Trial- No conviction by 2/3rds. Then a majority vote to disqualify Trump from holding public office again. Roberts not presiding over any of this leaves him to not recuse himself over hearing Trump appeal of the disqualifying vote. To my knowledge the power of the Senate to disqualify has never been in front of the court. That power appears in a separate clause from the 2/3rds conviction requirement to remove someone. The question is will scotus rule that an impeachment conviction is required to disqualify or is a majority vote after a trial good enough? On this the Constitution is not clear. We already know what scotus does too shred clear language in it.
This sham impeachment trial is going to go this way in my opinion.
Trial- No conviction by 2/3rds. Then a majority vote to disqualify Trump from holding public office again. Roberts not presiding over any of this leaves him to not recuse himself over hearing Trump appeal of the disqualifying vote. To my knowledge the power of the Senate to disqualify has never been in front of the court. That power appears in a separate clause from the 2/3rds conviction requirement to remove someone. The question is will scotus rule that an impeachment conviction is required to disqualify or is a majority vote after a trial good enough? On this the Constitution is not clear. We already know what scotus does too shred clear language in it.
(post is archived)