How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon?
OK, so its for a judge, not a president. That's why it doesn't preside over anything revolving around this matter.
If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president.
Its an entirely different position, therefore it has no bearing on Trump's impeachment.
The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.
What does any of this have to with Trump being impeached?
As you know I already answered this question, which you of course conveniently edited out of your quote of my reply. This is in fact an applicable precedent.
How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.