Legal experts took President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to task on Thursday after he suggested the Supreme Court should rule Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine scandal as “unconstitutional.”

The former New York mayor argued on Twitter that such a move would “prevent a precedent from forming which would allow the House to overstep its bounds and impeach for policy differences or political leverage.”

“If this impeachment is not declared illegal it would remove the constitutional limitation of crimes on the power to impeach,” Giuliani continued. “It would allow the House to impeach for policy differences or political leverage.”

But his case was swiftly shot down.

The Supreme Court should step in and rule this impeachment unconstitutional, to prevent a precedent from forming which would allow the House to overstep its bounds and impeach for policy differences or political leverage. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 9, 2020

House Democrats have put our constitutional government in grave danger by attempting to rewrite the carefully calibrated separation of powers under our Constitution & usurping powers not granted to the House. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 9, 2020

Democrats have brought Alexander Hamilton’s nightmare of an entirely partisan impeachment to fruition and are making a mockery of fair proceedings. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 9, 2020

If this impeachment is not declared illegal it would remove the constitutional limitation of crimes on the power to impeach. It would allow the House to impeach for policy differences or political leverage. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 9, 2020

It would prevent a future president to raise any challenge to the most illegal, overbroad subpoena from any of the multitude of congressional committees and sub-committees. Anytime Congress disagrees, it could charge abuse of power. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 9, 2020

Josh Chafetz, a Cornell law professor and expert on impeachment, described Giuliani’s argument as “some quality gibberish.”

“I honestly don’t know whether it would be worse if he believed this was the sort of thing that might happen, or if he was just cynically making it up for ... I dunno, reasons,” Chafetz responded, also challenging Giuliani to “file whatever sort of paperwork you think would be necessary to put this process in motion.”

this is some quality gibberish right here https://t.co/QkbelrG8be — Josh Chafetz (@joshchafetz) January 9, 2020

I honestly don't know whether it would be worse if he believed this was the sort of thing that might happen, or if he was just cynically making it up for ... I dunno, reasons. — Josh Chafetz (@joshchafetz) January 9, 2020

But I tell you what, @RudyGiuliani: You're the president's "lawyer," right? So why don't you file whatever sort of paperwork you think would be necessary to put this process in motion at the Supreme Court.



Be creative! I haven't heard much about the writ of scire facias lately! — Josh Chafetz (@joshchafetz) January 9, 2020

Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general who as a private lawyer frequently argues cases in the Supreme Court, described Giuliani’s tweet as “just about as good of a legal argument as everything else” he says.

This is just about as good of a legal argument as everything else Giuliani says.



Back in the world of legal reality, the Supreme Court resoundingly and unanimously concluded in US v Nixon that it had no role to play in impeachments whatsoever. https://t.co/meheUeDsnK — Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 9, 2020

Former federal prosecutors Renato Mariotti and Elie Honig also chimed in:

Impeachment is literally written in the constitution, which gives the House the “sole power” of impeachment. — Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 9, 2020

You’re all talk and you know you’re making crap up. If not, go ahead and bring a lawsuit. Back up your talk. (You won’t because you know any federal court would throw out your suit and find the impeachment legitimate). — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) January 9, 2020

As did University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal, who responded with a simple “lol.”

Others also dismantled Giuliani’s rationale:

No, its not the job of the supreme court to be the final arbiter. That is ridiculous. Its upon the senate to check the house and they will do so. https://t.co/lK83BLw6yb — Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 9, 2020

I'm no SCOTUS scholar, but I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way. https://t.co/ckul6lNyLl — Joshua Rhett Miller (@joshuarhett) January 9, 2020

shorter Rudy: the Supreme Court should rule the Constitution unconstitutional https://t.co/NYti2ouC7U — Johnny McNulty Is 35 This Year & Can Be President (@JohnnyMcNulty) January 9, 2020

That's Not How Any Of This Works Dot GIF https://t.co/HeVGHNhQPy — johntdrake (@johntdrake) January 9, 2020

The gross misunderstanding of the most basic Supreme Court jurisdiction and procedure here should really be grounds for disbarment https://t.co/20NiyYoEZf — Fiddler (@cFidd) January 9, 2020

Impeachment is literally part of the Constitution, you dunce. — William LeGate 🧢 (@williamlegate) January 9, 2020

Why don't we just get rid of the constitution, and the Congress and the Supreme Court for that matter. — Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 9, 2020

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."https://t.co/LPuOqObEav



Have you ever considered talking with a competent constitutional lawyer before you tweet, Mr. Mayor? https://t.co/zdFciTpHW6 — Alex Howard (@digiphile) January 9, 2020