So now, 47 spineless wimps who took it upon themselves to pass politically expedient judgement on the constitutionality of the trial have prevented it from reaching a facts-based verdict on which the Supreme Court could pass actual constitutionally authoritative judgement.
What's wrong with that picture?
Doesn't anyone other than me see it as possibly being a grotesque perversion of the system? ("Possibly," because I've got to concede that perhaps the question couldn't be taken to the Court in advance.)
If only 10 more Republicans had had the integrity to vote on the charges alone, he'd have been found guilty, and the Court would have been set up to reverse the decision on appeal if it found that the trial was indeed unconstitutional.
But under any circumstances, I"m still at a total loss as to why the question hasn't even been touched on in so much as one of the 1,000,002 articles I've read. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I somehow don't think that this trial ended in a manner that the founding fathers would find acceptable!
More: So are we destined to never know if the trial was constitutional unless someone is found guilty in similar circumstances and appeals?
That just doesn't sound right!
Last edited by artie505; 02/14/2103:24 AM. Reason: More
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.
In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
