What’s the deal with Roberts not presiding?

[Speedy]

It’s because the Constitution doesn’t require the chief justice to preside in the trial of anyone but the sitting president. This gives Justice Roberts the option to intercede, along with the rest of the Trump Court, in the trial. The court will probably declare the Senate trial moot since Pres. Trump is no longer in office - just like they did with the emoluments suit which was shameful.

(Autocorrect corrected.)

[cbelt3]

Speedy wrote:
It’s because the Constitution doesn’t require the chief justice to president in the trial of anyone but the sitting president. This gives Justice Roberts to option to intercede, along with the rest of the Trump Court, in the trial. The court will probably declare the Senate trial moot since Pres. Trump is no longer in office - just like they did with the emoluments suit which was shameful.

oh, this impeachment is NOT moot. The main goal is a conviction that forbids Trump from ever holding federal office. EVER. That's good for the Democratic party because it sends a clear message that messing with the constitution and elections gets you pain. And it's AWESOME for the Republicans because the Trump Party loses its chief candidate for 2024.

Actual punishment of the Worst President, well...

[Ombligo]

There has been a precedent of impeachment after the officeholder resigned, Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. Belknap resigned before the senate trial could. The process was done just to show that resigning office would not allow a person to escape unpunished. The trial took place but the defendant was acquitted. This was not a President, but it has taken place.

[deckeda]

There will be a trial. If Republicans do not want Roberts because of some interpretation that compels him only to preside if it’s a “sitting” president, then they are really arguing the trial itself is unconstitutional/moot.

There is precedent irrespective of office or title, so tying rules to circumstances isn’t going to work in their favor. Trump was president when the crime was committed so if Roberts begs off and everything is open to guessing then I’d be happy with say, Sotomayor presiding. But the defending party doesn’t get to shop for judges here.

As it is, this will be a rehash of the last one, with Republicans arguing about “process” and not evidence. It’s what you do when your position is indefensible.

[sekker]

So long as Biden stays ahead of the press cycle, and the GOP doesn't use this to impede his progress, I am all in favor.

It's a shame there wasn't a way to have an alternative judge preside, however. Looks bad this way.

[pdq]

Scotusblog:

The Constitution specifies only four points about the Senate impeachment trial of a president: (1) The Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments”; (2) when sitting as a court of impeachment, senators “shall be on oath or affirmation”; (3) conviction of any accused officer requires “concurrence of two thirds of the members present”; and (4) when the president is the accused, “the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. BTW, Trump is impeached, and this happened (twice, actually) during his term. The fact the Senate didn’t want to deal with the trial before he left office doesn’t invalidate the constitutional requirements for the trial, IMHO.

[Don C]

Will the next Republican majority House impeach a Democratic President just out of spite?

[RgrF]

Don C wrote:
Will the next Republican majority House impeach a Democratic President just out of spite?

Isn't that what they did with Clinton?

[Speedy]

RgrF wrote:
[quote=Don C]
Will the next Republican majority House impeach a Democratic President just out of spite?

Isn't that what they did with Clinton?
Of course not, Clinton was impeached for lying about having consensual sex.

[sekker]

Speedy wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
[quote=Don C]
Will the next Republican majority House impeach a Democratic President just out of spite?

Isn't that what they did with Clinton?
Of course not, Clinton was impeached for lying about having consensual sex.
... and doing so under oath.