Posted on 01/31/2020 6:09:16 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected Democratic efforts to rope him into possibly playing an active role in the impeachment trial of President Trump, saying he will not cast any tie-breaking votes.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Democrats’ floor leader, had suggested the chief justice could break ties, pointing back to the trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, where the chief justice at that time did cast votes to break two ties on procedural issues.
Senators rebelled against that involvement, and Chief Justice Roberts said he didn’t consider those two “isolated episodes” to be sufficient precedent for him to get involved.
He said he would not cast a vote in case of a 50-50 tie, and in that case whatever the motion was would fail for lack of a majority.
“It would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he said from the chair.
His declaration came just before the Senate was slated to vote on three different motions by Democrats to try to extend the trial by calling witnesses, and one motion to require the chief justice to play a more active role by letting him decide himself whether to call witnesses.
Chief Justice Roberts has been presiding for the last two weeks over the impeachment trial, as prescribed in the Constitution.
Democrats have repeatedly suggested he could play a major rule, such as arbitrating questions of witnesses and evidence and any privilege claims the president might exert. Mr. Trump’s team rejected that suggestion, saying that’s not how the process works.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I saw that and was pleasantly surprised. Roberts said it very firmly.
Smart.
Broken clock/ blind squirrel...
He may have been considering it, but after that rude question from Liz Warren, asking if he was even a legitimate judge, presiding in a No Witnesses Case, he thought: “Screw them, I’m supporting the president this time”.
And the Roberts as a Democrat tool theory falls apart.
Point to note is that Democrats now assume he is one of them.
“pointing back to the trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, where the chief justice at that time did cast votes to break two ties on procedural issues.”
And those were lessor issues, that chief justice violated the most important point the founders made. That no non-elected official should determine the welfare of the USA.
There was a HELL of a discussion at the constitutional convention of the issue of whether the courts should be elected by vote of the people or appointed.
It’s not a trial when you start with the verdict already decided. That’s called a lynching.
“It would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he said from the chair. “
Ok.
Fine.
I still don’t trust him.
It'll pass without much notice, but was a substantive point. If the DEMs were honest, they would know this without being spanked for trying to coopt CJ onto their team.
Also, once you take this and play it back into many of Schiff's arguments about how CJ could make the "more witnesses" process work quick, Schiff's arguments become totally bogus. IOW, Schiff assumes a bogus theory and asserts it as good law. A day later, on a slightly different question, CJ says Schiff's legal contentions are false.
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.
“Point to note is that Democrats now assume he is one of them”.
How so? He ruled against something they wanted.
You don't need a trial if you assume the facts as asserted, and conclude no guilt.
You don't encourage rogue prosecutors by giving them the power to drag accused through a trial.
Let's give Schiff a trial so he can prove he didn't collude with the whistleblower.
I had NO doubt that he would.
Speculation that he wants more involvement was lunacy, he wants out ASAP that’s up to Senate Rs
Very good post. You know your stuff.
Yes, he did. But obviously the Democrats had enough confidence in him to think he would vote their way or they wouldn't ask him to be the tie breaker.
Good points.
When I was listening to him, it crossed my mind that he had anticipated it and was ready with a firm response.
Broken clock/ blind squirrel...
—
I hope he’s a little better than that, but I fear he’s not.
Your two posts seem to contradict each other.
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.