Posted on 10/29/2019 10:53:35 AM PDT by Hebrews 11:6
As Chief Justice, John Roberts appoints the FISA judges, whose fraudulently-obtained surveillance approvals are central to the coup against President Trump. While I remain convinced that the House will not impeach him, if that were to occur it seems inevitable that Roberts would be a material witness and would recuse himself.
While normally the Vice President presides over the Senate, he would have an obvious conflict of interest in this instance. So, the Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice must preside over any impeachment trial of a President, but it is silent about any succession were he to be unavailable. The most senior of the remaining justices is the logical successor, and that is Clarence Thomas, who took his seat in 1991.
Interested in your take.
That would be hilarious. Who would wipe the drool and wake her up when it is over?
There is no enforcement mechanism if he refuses to recuse. Where would such an appeal be heard?
RBG is in awful fragile condition and couldn’t be put to daily taskings like this.
But even if you bring in Clarence Thomas...I wouldn’t say that he’s in perfect shape and this would be awful hard on him. It would be a shame if you got weeks into such an event, and Thomas had a heart attack in the middle of this.
He can recuse. The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside, and does not give any other options.
Judas Roberts is owned lock, stock , and barrel head by the Democrat Party. He will do as they say.
Agreed. There’s also no such mechanism within the Court itself. Kagan refused recusal in the Obamacare case although she helped draft it before joining the Court, iirc.
Roberts will not recuse himself and will preside over the Senate trial.
OK....A stupid premise generating an even more inane question.
Thanks for contributing.
Exactly. Why would a liberal Bush appointee recuse himself when he would have such an opportunity?
Here’s a question.
If the judge might have to recuse themselves....
Why wouldn’t members of the jury (all the Senators) have to recuse themselves for having pronounced guilt or innocense before the trial even begins??????
Like Warren, Booker, etc.
Recusal is a personal decision, not an imposed requirement. While I recognized your question as rhetorical, I wanted to articulate that anyway.
The never discussed elephant in the room is why did Dubya appoint Robert’s chief Justice instead of Clarence Thomas
Roberts will not recuse himself.
I never cease to be amazed how some people let their imaginations run away with them.
Does the Constitution explicitly allow for an associate Justice to sit in for the Chief Justice?
I can’t see Roberts actually recusing.
As I posted, it is silent. But if he is unavailable for any reason, there must be a successor.
Not even if he’s notified he’ll be a witness? Who would preside during his questioning?
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.