+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? (/showthread.php?tid=252176)
What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - samintx - 01-25-2021
He is supposed to. Impeachment not illegal.
Senate will have to decide if Kamala Harris will take his place
Trump's historic second impeachment trial will take place after he leaves office
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to send over impeachment article
House impeached Trump for 'incitement of insurrection'
Roberts presided over first impeachment even while doing daily duties at Supreme Court
During that trial Roberts was forced to read aloud questions from lawmakers furious over the failure of the trial to include witness testimony
It doesn’t seen right to have Dems preside.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - cbelt3 - 01-25-2021
Nothing official. OF course he can retire too. Preferably along with insurrection conspirator Thomas and the totally unqualified nutjob Barrett.
Oh, and anything Ron Paul says is 99.999% BS.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - pdq - 01-25-2021
Doesn’t the Constitution specify that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice?
...or does it say, if he wants to, and is not too busy?
Or do constitutional duties only apply to Democrats?
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - samintx - 01-25-2021
cbelt3 wrote:
Nothing official. OF course he can retire too. Preferably along with insurrection conspirator Thomas and the totally unqualified nutjob Barrett.
Oh, and anything Ron Paul says is 99.999% BS.
I heard Ronny Sunday :barf:
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - JoeH - 01-25-2021
pdq wrote:
Doesn’t the Constitution specify that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice?
...or does it say, if he wants to, and is not too busy?
Or do constitutional duties only apply to Democrats?
Some are arguing we are in a Constitutional gray area as 45 is no longer a sitting President. The language in the Constitution can be interpreted as only applying to require Roberts to preside over a current President, not a former one. His title as "President 45" at this point is only an honorific, just like anyone else who held office or military rank and gets referred to by the title they once held.
As the only penalty possible under the Constitution for being impeached and convicted in the Senate is banning from holding office in the future, arguments can be made both ways for whether or not Roberts needs to be presiding officer. Whichever way they do proceed, precedent will be made. Personally if not Roberts, I would hope they select someone outside the current Congress. That could be another SC judge, or retired judge from one of the higher courts who has significant stature.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - Buzz - 01-25-2021
pdq wrote:
Doesn’t the Constitution specify that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice?
...or does it say, if he wants to, and is not too busy?
Or do constitutional duties only apply to Democrats?
Recent events have proven the US Constitution is not in very good shape.
Heck, I'd venture to say that the USS Constitution (Old Raymond Burr/Blair Underwood) is in better shape after all these years.
Lately, the US Constitution has been made to look more like my Morning Constitutional Duty than the Bastion of Freedom it's supposed to be...
==
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - Ted King - 01-25-2021
pdq wrote:
Doesn’t the Constitution specify that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice?
...or does it say, if he wants to, and is not too busy?
Or do constitutional duties only apply to Democrats?
I think the problem is that Trump is no longer the president and the Constitution says that the the Chief Justice will preside of the impeachment trial of the president but not explicitly talk about the impeachment of an ex-president. So... I think they'll make the rules up as they go. I think it could end up with the Chief Justice presiding but I don't think the Constitution makes clear what to do in this situation.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - Ca Bob - 01-25-2021
Another little Constitutional ambiguity. The impeachment occurred while Trump was president, but the senate trial will not. The Constitution is clear about the trial of the president of the United States, but says nothing about an ex-president. So like other impeachment trials (of judges, former secretaries of war, etc) the senate will make up its own rules. It's not even clear to me that the president is guaranteed any particular due process -- clearly the prosecution in his previous impeachment trial were denied the right to call witnesses.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - cbelt3 - 01-25-2021
I do wonder if he’s expecting the same complete mockery the last trial was.
Re: What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding? - Acer - 01-25-2021
So, basically, the last two weeks of Presidency are above the law. Good to know for the next despot. Putin levels of manipulation.