Replies

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?

The original article suggests that Chief Justice Roberts would step down as Chief and continue as an Associate Justice. I don't think that's possible. Roberts was originally nominated as an Associate Justice; when Chief Justice Rehnquist died, President Bush resubmitted Roberts as his Chief Justice nomination. I don't think someone can "demote" and remain on the court, just as they cannot "promote" without being re-nominated and reconfirmed.

This was earlier discussed her on FR in a vanity on October 29, Jumping the Gun: If CJ Roberts Recuses, Would Clarence Thomas Preside Over A Senate Trial? [vanity] by Freeper Hebrews 11:6

While the original poster suggested that Roberts would recuse and an Associate Justice would preside, I said that there was no other option than for Roberts to resign.

But if he is unavailable for any reason, there must be a successor.
Since the Constitution says that the Chief Justice must preside, Constitutionally, I would suggest this:

If the Chief Justice is compromised, he should resign as unfit to fulfill his Constitutionally mandated duties.
If the Chief Justice is vacant, the President must nominate, and the Senate must confirm, a new Chief Justice before the impeachment trial may begin.
The President, in order to expedite such a case, ought to nominate a sitting Associate Justice to be the new Chief Justice (on the assumption that such person was already vetted and confirmed once), and leave the remaining nomination vacant until after the impeachment trial concludes.
If the President chooses to nominate a new person as Chief Justice, this would only delay matters indefinitely, as the Democrats would become enraged, and squishy Republicans might see this as the straw that breaks their backs once and for all. The feckless Republicans might just choose to convict and remove the President after the new Chief Justice is seated, if he's seen to try to game the SCOTUS when the Senate was under the gun.
I see no other way that doesn't violate the Constitution.
But resignation in lieu of recusal? Seems overly harsh.
It's not harsh. He's the head of one of the three branches of the federal government. The man either can do the job or not.
Why make excuses or lower the standards for the highest offices in the land, when there are others waiting to take the job who can do it? He's not owed any favors just because he currently holds the office.

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Recusal is not an option. If he cannot fulfill his Constitutional duties, then he is no longer qualified for the job. He either presides over the Senate trial with all his baggage exposed, or he steps down and lets someone else take over.

-PJ