"appellate jurisdiction"
The Nixon decision references the Powell decision in which "standards" were imposed upon the House action and were reviewable. That was distinguishable as far as appellate jurisdiction, not to mention that Nixon involves the impeachment of a judge.
Originally Posted by LexusLover
When "applying" a case to make a point a common error is to quote dicta in a case to support an alleged point in a factually distinguishable case. Going back to the "original" discussion, it had nothing to do with the "procedural aspects" of a trial in the Senate (
Nixon), but this thread discussion (at least mine) had to do with the decision making of the House in the initial impeachment process ... not the "process," but application of the specific standards imposed upon the House to impeach (
Powell standards of review, which the was not "overruled" or otherwise "marginalized" by the majority or concurring opinions in Nixon.
First of all, Nixon did "review" the language of the Constitution.
Secondly, the importance of Powell in the discussion is that the Court in Nixon recognized the "standards" used for judicial review of House action, and concluded, correctly, that when there are "standards" established by the Constitution the application and compliance with those standards by the House are "reviewable." Not only are there Constitutional standards for articles of impeachment that restrict the House there are also "standards" for the qualification of President, which ARE ON POINT to the discussion and my scenario of a racially motivated impeachment decision
Thirdly, the separation of powers played a role in the decision in Nixon in which the Judiciary reviewing the trial of a Judge was not consistent with the separation of powers, not to mention the Judge had already been convicted of several felonies, which, of course, would satisfy the legal requirements of the House articles of impeachment ("high crimes and misdemeanors").
Here is the distinction stated specifically in the Nixon decision by the Majority:
"We agree with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, “whether the action of [either the Legislative or Executive Branch] exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211; accord, Powell, supra, at 521." Nixon, 506 U.S. 237-238.
Since there are "textual limitations" (the enumeration of the basis for articles of impeachment in the Constitution) on the authority of the House to "indict" with articles of impeachment, Baker and Powell are controlling with the approval of the Court in Nixon. That is also consistent with Robert's quote I have posted regarding judicial review of Congressional action outside of its "authority."
Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:
"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."
Sounds like Rehnquist and Roberts are on the same page! And Nixon is not helpful to the point of the "IMPEACHERS" in the thread.
A far cry from "full discretion" as was announced by the IMPEACHERS.
