Posted on 10/27/2019 4:06:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Well, you did and are doing it,dp.
Maybe this is an off season time
Well put
“I don’t trust him....”
I don’t either.... somebody has a string on him
I appreciate that.
But it’s been an off season for too long
It’s amazing how THE SAME BRAIN that literally STARVED to lose 100 plus and keep it off for years just can’t do it again for 100 pounds and get it over with.
I guess the brain is fluid, unlike say a computer.
What it can do one day or week, it can’t do another.
Roberts gets a bad rep. I know the Constitution as written but deeper context can be way to much of a mess. I wish Madison and Jefferson would give their opinion. I wish we had more Presidents and Congressmen like them.
This is utter nonsense.
The Chief Justice has only a ceremonial role in presiding over the Senate trial, and doesn’t even have a role in citing or enforcing procedure unless the Senate asks his opinion.
And he most certainly does not get a vote.
Besides, what part of “the Chief Justice will preside” does this dimwit not understand?
“What the House is doing is well beyond the constraints of Constitutional authority with regard to impeachment.”
Nonsense.
The House can run an impeachment any way they damn well please.
As long as in the end they muster a majority vote.
And there is no power on earth that can compel them to do, or not do, as they please.
Period.
If Roberts is a good Justice, he will send the “case” back to the House and say start over with due process for the President. And by the way, there are no impeachable offenses in your referral.
But there is almost no role for the CJ in the hearings. He “presides” over them. I don’t think - or know of - any specific powers he would have except to appoint administrative assistants. It’s not like a regular court where he can rule on evidence or process. In the trial of POTUS Johnson, the CJ presiding over the case did make some unilateral procedural rulings but his rulings were overturned by the Senate.
Exactly. During the Clintoon trial, the Chief Justice was a figurehead, and rightfully so. Impeachment is a political process, and he simply presided over the proceedings. He wasn't issuing rulings from the bench like Judge Ito or anything like that.
Let Clarence Thomas preside.
The Chief Justice is involved for one reason only...that is to give a political trial the semblance of a fair and impartial hearing. He’s window dressing.
I recall Rehnquist making a ruling favoring Clinton during that trial. It was whether the senators could be referred to as “jurors”.
Any way to remove him as Chief Justice?
If so, it should have been done already!!
Our Founders understood that, a lot times, important public figures strongly disagree with one another on principle, or profoundly dislike one another personally.
They set us up a system that rolls in spite of that.
Maybe Trump seduced Roberts’s wife ... zot only knows ... but the procedures are the procedures. Stop acting like the present situation is special. It isn’t.
Impeachment arguments are supposed to take place in a full house, with no ambiguity. This was not a suggestion, but a meticulous directive on how the process should have been advanced. The fact that the House leadership has essentially shut out the Republicans and the public from the proceedings, and instead leaking part of the testimony that removes all context is not an impeachment proceeding, but a star chamber devoid of justice.
So if the House leadership (Democrats) can make the rules, what else can they do? Why not just shut all Republicans out from ALL House business, because they are in the minority, and only let them in if the Democrats don’t have the required votes at any time (such as overriding a veto)? This, frankly, is JUST as valid as the fake impeachment process they are doing now.
Bump
“Impeachment arguments are supposed to take place in a full house, with no ambiguity. This was not a suggestion, but a meticulous directive on how the process should have been advanced.”
Directive? By whom exactly?
It’s precedent, not directive.
There is no power on earth that can direct the House on impeachment protocol. None.
AGAIN...
Then by your logic, there is no restriction on what Pelosi and the Democrats can do to run the rest of the House business. If they want to lock the Republicans out of the Capitol Building, they have the right to do so.
I rarely use hyperbole, but with regard to House proceedings, one must compare apples to apples. By restricting all GOP involvement with any aspect of impeachment, then by extension, in fact, Pelosi can restrict all GOP involvement with any aspect of House governance. And, in fact, this is the direction the House is going, once all is said and done.
“Then by your logic, there is no restriction on what Pelosi and the Democrats can do to run the rest of the House business. If they want to lock the Republicans out of the Capitol Building, they have the right to do so.”
They can deny them participation in any and all aspects of House governance and bills. As long as they have those 218 votes when doing so.
But they cannot deny them access to the building. That was a non sequitur.
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.