He did, and he had studied up on the issue.
He addressed the votes the Chief Justice cast 150 years go in the Impeachment of Johnson.
He mentioned that one was over a procedural question and the other was over adjournment. (something very close to this)
He said that he didn’t think it would be right to enter into the Impeachment, since he’s from a different branch of the government, and this power is clearly given to the senate.
He then touched on what the procedure would be for a tie vote.
He stated the motion would fail upon a tie.
I’m not a legal scholar, but that sounded pretty solid to me.
Good points.
When I was listening to him, it crossed my mind that he had anticipated it and was ready with a firm response.
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.