Posted on 11/22/2019 6:36:42 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
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.
Roberts’ kids are adults. Any owning him on their adoption should be mute by now.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-denies-throwing-cocktail-party-for-judge-surveillance-court
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.
If the Chief Justice is unable to perform his duties the most senior associate justice acts in his place. That's Clarence Thomas.
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 theyre not under investigation they should be.
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.
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.
Thanks LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget,so many twists and turns.
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.
So who do we get?
So, maybe it is possible for Congress to substitute a "chief" justice for impeachment purposes.
-PJ
I was thinking the same thing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.