Will Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices rule in his favor on impeachment? History suggests not.

Tim O'Donnell

The Supreme Court is expected to be a neutral arbiter, but there's a sense that could be put to an "existential test" in this hyperpartisan era, The Washington Post reports.

Yet, history suggests the Court likely won't split when it comes to legal questions concerning the president, even though there are two Trump appointed justices on the bench. It's not the first time justices have had to deal with cases crucial to the president who nominated them, after all.

The Post notes that three justices appointed by former President Richard Nixon joined the unanimous ruling requiring him to turn over the now-infamous, eponymous tapes in a criminal investigation resulting from Watergate, which eventually led to his resignation. Another justice, William Rehnquist, even recused himself because he had previously worked in the Nixon administration (some people argue the Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh should do the same, the Post reports).

Likewise, current Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer ruled alongside their cohort in 1997's unanimous ruling that forced then-President Bill Clinton to answer Paula Jones' lawsuit accusing him of sexual advances. Ginsburg and Breyer were both Clinton nominees, and the decision was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who led the court's liberal wing at the time.

So, partisanship hasn't been a hindrance in impeachment-related legal cases in the past for the Supreme Court. Of course, history doesn't always repeat itself. Read more at The Washington Post.

More stories from theweek.com
God's gift to America?
5 scathingly funny cartoons about the Trump-ified GOP
The Democratic primary’s generational divide