Posted on 01/31/2020 6:09:16 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Good explanation.
The Chief Justice is there to lend gravitas and dignity to the proceedings.
And to shoot down idiots like Schumer.
I am sick and tired of any libtard referencing Andrew Johnson.
That is my point.
Those idiots have no idea what that was about.
Thanks
Yes!
CJ Roberts deserves faint praise for not digging his hole deeper after his unfounded refusal to read Sen Paul’s valid and pertinent question about Ciaramella’s relationship with this guy Misko who now works for Schiff. Everybody Knows CiaraMelaka is the ‘whistleblower’ yet they pretend not to know. If Roberts doesn’t know who he is then how would he know not to allow his name to be spoken? Schiff lilied repeatedly in the trial by saying his doesn’t know who the whistleblower USA d should be the one on trial. Rand trapped him with that question and for all purposes Roberts clearly Protected Schiff
I know very little about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and appreciate your input and knowledge.
When this is over, we can hope that Schiff head Schiff is in trouble.
The Vice President can vote to break a tie when he is “presiding over” the senate.
The Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will “preside over” Senate impeachment trials.
The Vice President is out-of-the-loop on these sessions.
I respectfully disagree. Impeachment trials are "weird," even though they have general parallels with criminal trials.
In impeachment, the senate as a body sits as judge (rulemaker), jury, and even as advocate.
The idea is that Congress stands in the stead of the public to remove incompetent or dangerous officials, elected and appointed.
Removing elected officials should naturally be mindful of the turnover that happens in election, but that is only one factor. Congress eventually answers to the public for its action, and congress is given plenary power over impeachment.
I do agree that the House has the burden of production of evidence, as well as the burden of persuasion. But the senate must also engage in persuasion as the two chambers "sell" the deal to the public.
What we have now is a Nifong House, and a senate that is reluctant to call 'em out as such. The outcome is fine, no removal, but the punishment is by the process, and there is no limit to the amount of process that Congress can dish out.
Finally, Roberts has done one small thing to atone for his vote on Obamacare!
What a complete massive smack down of that vile @sshole Adam Schittforbrains!!! Not only did Roberts say no, he said “Hell no, you RETARD!””
He totally humiliated Schittforbrains, who I hope is suicidal right now.
Schiff is a sick, deranged liar. If there is any justice he should be tried and convicted and go to prison for what he has put the country through. That won’t happen but I’ll settle for taking the House back. We are very close to anarchy and need a Trump landslide with very long coattails
Great post. Yes, we’re very, very close to the edge.
The Senate has to sell it's judgement of the evidence presented to it by the House to the public. The House asking to bring in "new" witnesses that are not included in their presentation evidence/testimony of the articles of impeachment amounts to having the Senate take part in developing the case against the very President they are supposed to be a non-partial judge of. The constitution forbids this by assigning this duty/power solely to the House. The proper process for the new testimony is for the House to gather it, then, if they decide to do so, submit it with another article of impeachment. The Senate cannot be held hostage to the incompetence of the House. I certainly agree that impeachment "trials" are nothing like real, everyday trials. This particular "trial" would have been declared a mistrial on so many occasions it was hard to count.
LOL +1
Freeper trolls who continuously attacked John Robert are greatly saddened ...
I’m not rigid on this rules sort of thing, although I agree with your argument. In a good faith sharing of the work, the House would weed out baseless claims, not give weight to them.
I think the senate expaning witness testimony in the Clinton case was okay. House and Senate shoudl work as a team.
But at this point, Congress is working against the public, so the good-faith teamwork thing looks a bit different. Maybe it’s better if we let them destroy each other. Maybe add a bit of fuel to the fire. Congress needs to be rejected by the public, whatever that look like.
The funny thing is that the first instance, the procedural question, was over whether the Chief Justice could break a tie vote. When the vote on that was tied he broke the tie by voting yea. Pretty circular if you ask me. Next he then broke the tie on the adjournment vote. He must have been really hungry or disgusted or something.
They don't actually. The Democrats assumed Roberts is one of them, so they wanted him to be their tie-breaker thinking he would break a tie in their favor.
Maybe it’s the use of the word “now” that made it confusing. I meant now as in ‘these days’, not now as in after Roberts refused to be their tie breaker.
Thanks. I didn’t know as much as you do about it.
Interesting...
Good for Roberts!
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.