Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Starstruck

About a week ago...some journalist noted that SCJ Roberts had made a private comment (I assume to McConnell/Schumer) that he had zero interest in being the sitting judge on this particular impeachment. No details were given but I suspect he knows it’ll drag up to be a case before the court within twelve months.

I think the Constitution says that the presiding official should be the Chief Justice. It doesn’t really say what happens if he counters them to say ‘no, I won’t do the job’.

They (the Democrats) might make up a rule out of thin air....bringing in some retired Senator or former federal judge to act in this capacity...but all it’d do is provide more problems in dumping the conviction if it went to the Supreme Court for review.

In simple terms....it just makes everything appear more like a government in Paraguay, than a legit government.


34 posted on 01/23/2021 1:33:44 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: pepsionice

Don’t think impeachment is subject to judicial review though. Not a legal beagle, so I could be wrong.


37 posted on 01/23/2021 1:39:23 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: pepsionice
I think the Constitution says that the presiding official should be the Chief Justice. It doesn’t really say what happens if he counters them to say ‘no, I won’t do the job’.

That would be a Constitutional check and balance between co-equal branches of government.

If Roberts won't preside over an impeachment trial of a former President, that means a co-equal branch had decided that the Legislative branch is exceeded its authority versus the Executive branch, and the impeachment should be ruled as unconstitutional.

They (the Democrats) might make up a rule out of thin air....bringing in some retired Senator or former federal judge to act in this capacity...but all it’d do is provide more problems in dumping the conviction if it went to the Supreme Court for review.

I think the purpose of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial of a President is that that IS the Supreme Court review. If Roberts refuses to participate, it's over. Refusal of the Chief Justice to participate means the Supreme Court deemed the impeachment to be an unconstitutional overreach of the Legislative branch against the Executive branch.

-PJ

48 posted on 01/23/2021 1:51:26 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (Freedom of the press is the People's right to publish, not CNN's right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: pepsionice

The proper response for Roberts is to preside and rule at the start of the trial that the Senate lacks jurisdiction, not to refuse to preside. Roberts could also rule that he does not preside because Trump is no longer president.


92 posted on 01/23/2021 3:16:16 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson