[Disestablishmentarian]

ON THE FLOOR - Chuck made a parliamentary inquiry to Chief Justice - I missed the end of the exchange ... anybody have details please? ThankQ :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Schumer asked if the Chief Justice Roberts knew that there were tie-breaker votes cast by the Chief in certain questions on the Johnson impeachment (in 1868).

Roberts said "Yes" he was aware, and had decided these "Votes" by the Chief on a couple of minor points ... such as an adjournment, DID NOT constitute a precedent for him to participate in this way.

Then Schumer called ANOTHER vote on Bolton etc. ... which I thought was already dispensed with in the earlier vote today.

Sigh.

[Steven W.]

ThankQ!

- Roberts said “Yes” he was aware, and had decided these “Votes” by the Chief on a couple of minor points ... such as an adjournment, DID NOT constitute a precedent for him to participate in this way. -

I believe that was Mark Levin’s belief and it’s actually good that distinction was made and put on the record.

[grey_whiskers]

WARNING: GRAPHIC. But funny!
(Concerns Roberts, and the House Managers (I assume Liddle Adam Schitt):
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7441428f49af574e3df8b22a3b58d64c65be90c20d1385b2b1b25820c87da5c7.jpg?w=800&h=903