[Political Junkie Too]

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

[Sidebar Moderator]

Your argument makes perfect sense.

[Delta 21]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

YES.