In the "real world", LL, the Court ruled in Nixon that regarding impeachment, there is no judicial review; and there never has been.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Back "on point" ... every case you read in which "impeachment" is discussed is overtly a "judicial review" of the impeachment process. The distinction, and it is an important one recognized by the Court in Nixon, the facts in Nixon had to do with the "trial" in the Senate and NOT THE IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE.
It is almost elementary .. apples and oranges. That IS the real world. I see it frequently in others' research in which the rely on the "headnotes" and "syllabuses" to justify the use of a case, when a critical examination of the discussion in the case and the facts of the case render the case irrelevant. Or as you all have done, pluck out a line in the opinion and attempt to apply it to another fact situation.
That's why you guys want to change the scope of my point. "Impeachment" is in the House of Representatives, which does have enumerated "standards" upon which it can base Articles of Impeachment. It was not an ISSUE in Nixon, because Nixon had ALREADY been convicted of a "high crime and misdemeanor" by definition...... "bribery."
BTW, I hope you don't think I get "concerned" about what an "editor" at Justia has to say about the law .... when "we" have a guy in the White House who was the "Chief" editor of the Harvard Law Review (as well as a "Constitutional Law Professor) and he is constantly in trouble with the Supreme Court, and hopefully coming up to bat to get struck out again with his newly crafted immigration legislation that exonerates at least 5 million criminals from their crimes.
But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.
It's not a "forbidden topic."
It's a waste of time, if which "we" don't have a lot.