Posted on 10/27/2019 4:06:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In an impeachment trial in the Senate, President Trump would look up to see one of his Washington establishment foes, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., presiding over the historic proceedings from the dais in the upper chamber.
Mr. Trump, who has clashed with Chief Justice Roberts over the perceived political bias of the federal courts, would have to count on him for a fair hearing when the fate of his presidency hangs in the balance.
It’s a prospect that has caused rumblings in Washington that the chief justice should recuse himself.
John Cardillo, a conservative radio personality and host on Newsmax TV, sounded the recusal alarm.
“There is already a crisis of confidence among the American people that we have a fair system of justice. When you have a chief justice of the Supreme Court overtly making comments that are derogatory to the president of the United States, take all speculation out of the process,” he said.
What’s more, the recusal question extends down the bench of the high court. All of the justices likely will play a role in deciding Congress’ subpoenas power over the executive branch as House Democrats conduct an impeachment inquiry.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have publicly commented on Mr. Trump in recent years, including Justice Ginsburg going as far as calling him a “faker” and the chief justice sending a sharp rebuke to the commander in chief over the political independence of the judiciary.
The issue of potential bias comes about a year after Justice Roberts released an unusual statement, indirectly firing back at the president over his politicization of judges based on the president who appointed them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It’s a ridiculous article. Roberts has a Constitutional role and that’s it.
Gak...
I hadn’t remembered this. Thanks GW. /s
Roberts will rule it a tax, and Trump will be toast.
Okay, okay... was having a flashback there.
Still not a big fan of the guy, and he isn’t someone I would want associated with a Trump Impeachment trial in the Senate.
Even if Trump had never verbally disagreed with the Chief Justice, Roberts would not be an impartial judge. Whatever dirt the Democrats have on him which caused him to switch his vote and save Obamacare would probably motivate him to side with the Democrats as much as he can while still pretending to be impartial.
Roberts, Confess and lose your family, confess and lose your freedom.
The freest nation that can be should not go down to protect your perversions.
I don’t believe in God but I pray there is a Hell.
And we have a constitutional role not to BE BITCHES if it even gets THAT FAR.
But we won’t perform that role.
And we will lose it along with a lot of other freedoms.
This article AND your comments are semantics.
If a CLOSED HEARING SECRET DOUBLE PROBATION impeachment over something THAT WAS NEVER A CRIME is successful, then who really gives a flying #### what happens after that?
Oh wait, we’re trusting Rs to do the right thing and there’s NO WAY 2/3 would vote to kick him out.
Until there are.
Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution about the Chief Justice stepping aside. The only thing he could do would be to step down as Chief Justice. I don’t know if he can do that without resigning entirely from the Court.
Any timing that Roberts makes can instantly be overruled by a vote of the Senate. He is nothing more than a glorified moderator.
John Roberts is responsible for us getting Obamacare. Rumors have swirled that he and his wife adopted kids illegally from Ireland and he was blackmailed with the threat of taking his kids away in order to pass Obamacare.
I don’t trust him....
i was hoping that this article was about Roberts getting impeached. shucks
The Supreme Court would not look kindly on being cut out of the impeachment process. They could just rule it unconstitutional.
We The People will need to intervene.
I understand (from your own postings) that you are obese, out of shape.
Please work to change that. I am.
Dems dont have to worry..they have his neck in the blackmail noose
Mostly a figurehead. Senate is judge and jury.
Well I got to the high 200s from FOUR THIRTY FIVE, God forgive me, and i just can’t seem to budge from it.
Sick of being hungry.
I can MAINTAIN now easily enough.
Just can’t seem to find the willpower that got me out of the 400s and 300s.
BTW, hope you are well. Gave us a scare some ways back with the glucose numbers.
And I LIE to myself that a normal blood pressure and blood tests mean it’s no biggie, the weight.
That’s a LIE.
Alright i’m done confessing :)
And we can’t forget that Roberts presides over the FISA judges. He’s probably in this mess as deep as Comey is.
Any ruling.
-PJ
By rights, he should. That serves to highlight my beef with him though. I don’t think the guy is up to the serious nature of the duties here.
The other major case he wound up ruling on, saw a major miscarriage of justice.
That was bad enough, but now he gets to preside over the removal of a man that has done nothing wrong.
Will he know that?
Yes, technically, Roberts only has a Constitutionally limited role in impeachment proceedings, in that he only presides with no dictatorial directive, such as a regular civil or criminal trial would entail.
BUT...we are in post-Constitutional times. What the House is doing is well beyond the constraints of Constitutional authority with regard to impeachment. Since the House doesn’t need any stinkin’ badge, what makes you think that Roberts will follow his Constitutional restraints? Especially if the House votes with NO PUBLIC RELEASE of ANY evidence that would allow the issue to be fairly discussed.
And if the issue WAS discussed fairly, there would be no way that any Deomcrat in a purple district or any Republican at all in the House or the Senate would vote anywhere near a No vote.
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.