Question for Justice Roberts: Were President Trump's procedural due process rights violated?

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was asked an eminently sensible question last night in front of TV cameras:

The president has suggested that you should just move to dismiss. You clearly want to get this over sooner rather than later. Why not push to try and get this dismissed?

An uncomfortable-looking McConnell said, "Yeah, yeah," after talking over the reporter several times, leaving him with this:

There is little or no sentiment in Republican conference for a motion to dismiss. Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the arguments and we've laid out in this resolution an opportunity for everybody to sit there; remember senators can't say anything, so we'll have to sit there and listen, to listen carefully to the arguments by both the prosecution and the defense, to follow that up with written questions, uh, submitted through the chief justice and that means listening to the case, not dismissing the case.

So now we know that House speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate to avoid having them dismissed out of hand for the sham that they are —w hich anyone over the age of ten can see is the case.  Mission accomplished!

Democrats must be breathing a huge sigh of relief.  At least implicitly, McConnell has granted that Star Chamber shenanigans in the House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary (Nadler) Committee have legal legitimacy.  I argued earlier this week that the articles are "poisoned fruit" of legally objectionable proceedings because President Trump's procedural due process rights were violated.  The arguments are logically correct and rest on unassailable premises.

Now, as it happens, the general public can forward questions to Supreme Court justices, but it must be done in writing and must be addressed to a specific member of the Court.  So, later today, I will print out the aforementioned article and send it to Chief Justice John Roberts with a cover letter asking for a ruling on the issue of whether the House violated President Trump's procedural due process rights.  Judge Roberts will be presiding over trial proceedings in the Senate.

I don't expect an answer.  I'm doing it out of duty to bring the matter to Roberts's attention. 

Since such letters are apparently welcomed, American Thinker readers wishing to contact him can do so at this address:  

The Honorable John G. Roberts
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was asked an eminently sensible question last night in front of TV cameras:

The president has suggested that you should just move to dismiss. You clearly want to get this over sooner rather than later. Why not push to try and get this dismissed?

An uncomfortable-looking McConnell said, "Yeah, yeah," after talking over the reporter several times, leaving him with this:

There is little or no sentiment in Republican conference for a motion to dismiss. Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the arguments and we've laid out in this resolution an opportunity for everybody to sit there; remember senators can't say anything, so we'll have to sit there and listen, to listen carefully to the arguments by both the prosecution and the defense, to follow that up with written questions, uh, submitted through the chief justice and that means listening to the case, not dismissing the case.

So now we know that House speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate to avoid having them dismissed out of hand for the sham that they are —w hich anyone over the age of ten can see is the case.  Mission accomplished!

Democrats must be breathing a huge sigh of relief.  At least implicitly, McConnell has granted that Star Chamber shenanigans in the House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary (Nadler) Committee have legal legitimacy.  I argued earlier this week that the articles are "poisoned fruit" of legally objectionable proceedings because President Trump's procedural due process rights were violated.  The arguments are logically correct and rest on unassailable premises.

Now, as it happens, the general public can forward questions to Supreme Court justices, but it must be done in writing and must be addressed to a specific member of the Court.  So, later today, I will print out the aforementioned article and send it to Chief Justice John Roberts with a cover letter asking for a ruling on the issue of whether the House violated President Trump's procedural due process rights.  Judge Roberts will be presiding over trial proceedings in the Senate.

I don't expect an answer.  I'm doing it out of duty to bring the matter to Roberts's attention. 

Since such letters are apparently welcomed, American Thinker readers wishing to contact him can do so at this address:  

The Honorable John G. Roberts
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543