I never put this together before, but: as @ZephyrTeachout helpfully noted in 2009, part of the argument for why the Senate, not SCOTUS tries impeachments is that, in Gouverneur Morris's words, "The supreme Court were too few in number and might be warped or corrupted." (1/)
Delegate Roger Sherman specifically objected to SCOTUS trying impeachments as being improper "because the Judges would be appointed by him."
That's right, Originalists: the Framers didn't want SCT justices ruling on corrupt acts by the President who nominated them. (2/)
That's right, Originalists: the Framers didn't want SCT justices ruling on corrupt acts by the President who nominated them. (2/)
You can find Madison's notes here on that day's debates here (9-8-1787): avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/d…
The other thing they did that day was expand the grounds from treason/bribery to include HC&M - George Mason noted "Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason" (3/)
The other thing they did that day was expand the grounds from treason/bribery to include HC&M - George Mason noted "Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason" (3/)
For a nice deep dive on how deeply embedded anti-corruption principles are in the Constitution, read Zephyr's article. One example: why do Electoral College members meet separately in each state, rather than in DC? It's harder to corrupt them all at once.
lawschool.cornell.edu/research/corne…
lawschool.cornell.edu/research/corne…
