Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process

American Thinker ^ | November 22, 2019 | Ed Timperlake

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

The target of Democrat zealots in the House of Representatives lead by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff is to impeach and remove President Donald Trump. Sadly for him the person they have a much higher probability of removing from his lofty perch is Chief Justice John Roberts. The famous cliché; the law of unintended consequences is fast approaching.

...

Since the Constitution definitely states it must be the “Chief Justice” by title that presides over a Senate trail it can easily be understood and fully accepted that provision (b) of serving in government employment is not an ABA ethical disqualification. However, provision “c” cannot be ignored, and thus the law of unintended consequences will kick in.

The Constitution requires specifically that the Chief Justice must be the Judge for the Senate Trial. According to ABA ethics if Chief Justice Roberts is a material witness he cannot and should not fulfill his constitutional role and must step aside. He will have one of the biggest conflicts of interest in American history.

The constitution does not say “acting” Chief Justice so if he must recuse himself and another Justice legally and ethically steps into the Impeachment proceedings that Justice must become the Chief Justice... If the replacement Justice does not become the legal Chief Justice the Senate trial is fatally flawed from the opening gavel.

So the question for this article is simple;

Madam Speaker are you prepared to see Chief Justice Roberts step aside to become just an associate Justice while a new Chief Justice is selected and given the oath of office?

It is that serious you ignorant zealots.

[bgill]

Well, none of the witnesses have known anymore than my cats or Roberts. The only reason the dems want him is because he’s likely to side with them.

[bgill]

Roberts’ kids are adults. Any owning him on their adoption should be mute by now.

[rolling_stone]

and remember the fisa court judge stroz indicated was a friend..contreras was abruptly "recused" from flynn case.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-denies-throwing-cocktail-party-for-judge-surveillance-court

[DoodleDawg]

It is a nice trap to get that liberal out his office.

It removes him from Chief Justice and leaves him on the Bench. The role of Chief Justice is administrative anyway. On the matters before the court all justices are equal.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You've ignored the possibility of the Senate agreeing to a Chief Justice ad litem (for the lawsuit), then agreeing on a substitute.

[DoodleDawg]

Kavanaugh. Younger and would be there longer.

If the Chief Justice is unable to perform his duties the most senior associate justice acts in his place. That's Clarence Thomas.

[Shethink13]

Unless he presided in some way over that particular document on the FISA court or the FISA court judges themselves are under investigation he’s not a material witness in anyway shape or form.

This is something that has frustrated me since we heard about the FISA abuse. We keep hearing about how the deep staters lied to the poor, pitiful FISA judges. These judges hold the power to subject citizens to anal examination by the federal government. The fact that they are so easily duped makes them at the very least incompetent boobs or at most totally corrupt. If they’re not under investigation they should be.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

Yeah, the FISA court is not a part of the proposed impeachment articles. Just because Hill gave many long, rambling answers doesn’t mean that everything she said is going to be part of the case presented to the Senate.

[Boogieman]

Sorry, but the ABA rules really have no power over the Supreme Court justices. They and they alone decide whether to recuse themselves on any matter. If Kagan didn’t have to recuse herself from the Obamacare challenges, when she was previously the Solicitor General in charge of crafting the legal defense against those challenges, then I don’t see any circumstance where a justice can actually be compelled to recuse.

[fatima]

Thanks LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget,so many twists and turns.

[Shethink13]

Every court has a presiding judge who acts as the court administrator. Just because the Chief Justice determines the justices on the FISA court, doesn’t mean he is privy to any case that is presented.

I may be wrong here but I believe he is not only in charge of who is on the FISA court, but who is assigned to each case. We already know that Contreras (bud of Stroczk) was one that approved the FISA warrant. AFAIK, we do not know who the other 3 judges were. Would be interesting to know whether Contreras was involved in any or all of the others.

Sort of like how Berman always just happens to be the judge whenever the deep staters need a ruling in their favor.

Also, refer to my post #67.

[fatima]

So who do we get?

[Political Junkie Too]

Interestingly, there is no mention of a "chief" justice in Article III, only in Article I Section 3 when mentioning impeachment.

So, maybe it is possible for Congress to substitute a "chief" justice for impeachment purposes.

-PJ

[fatima]

I was thinking the same thing.

[Hebrews 11:6]

It’s all negotiable, decided by a simple Senate majority (if all are present, 50 + VP). Still, as I have maintained steadfastly, this House will never even hold an actual up-or-down impeachment vote.

[offduty]

I know he assigns Federal District Judges to the FISA Court, but I doubt if he is involved in who gets what case.

If memory serves, there is a Presiding Judge (Rosemary Collyer) who would be more likely to assign cases as they come in.

[ballplayer]

The FISA court was defrauded,Roberts is the one that appoints the FISA judges,the dossier was presented to the FISA COURT,the dossier was raised in the impeachment hearings yesterday.That makes him a material witness I guess

[scrabblehack]

As I recall, Kagan fulfilled (a) and (b) but did not recuse herself.

It’s up to the judge to recuse him- or herself.

No penalty will arise if he doesn’t recuse himself.

It would be up to Congress to impeach Roberts for not recusing.

[Albion Wilde]

[Political Junkie Too]

It's all negotiable within the allowable framework of the Constitution.

There is no "ad litem" in the Constitution, but that is countered by the fact that there is no "Chief Justice" in Article III, which creates the Supreme Court.

The office of a "Chief Justice" has been in existence since the first Supreme Court (John Jay), but I don't think the Framers meant the Chief Justice to be a mutable, situational office. Every Chief Justice in the history of the nation either resigned, retired, or died in office.

I suppose a progressive could say that there's always a first time, but why MUST there be a first time, and why MUST that first time be now (when it suits the Democrats and hurts the Republicans)? If there must be a first time, wouldn't We the People expect it to be at a time when the nation's forward path is not at stake, like with some routine case that reaches the highest court?

So, for me, I think there are some questions I'd need answered before I can resolve this question:

1. Why have we had a Chief Justice since the first Supreme Court, even though the office of Chief Justice is only mentioned in regards to impeachment, and the first impeachment hadn't occurred until 1868?
2. If the Chief Justice is only required for impeachment, why wasn't an ad litem approach taken, and no Chief Justice appointed until needed for an impeachment? (same question as above, but reframed)

-PJ