Posted on 01/31/2020 4:57:16 AM PST by KeyLargo
In Trump Trial, Can Chief Justice Roberts Call Witnesses Without Senate Approval? Jan 31st, 2020 By Thomas Jipping
Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies GianCarlo Canaparo
Legal Fellow
Key Takeaways
Most Republican senators oppose calling witnesses, but it would take only four Republican senators siding with Democrats to open Trump’s trial to witness testimony.
Should they fail to get enough Republican support for witnesses, Democrats are trying to find another way to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.
It appears that neither Democrats nor their allies are interested in making serious arguments in favor of impeachment. Copied
As soon as House Democrats adopted two articles of impeachment against President Trump Dec. 18, they started making demands about how the Republican-controlled Senate should conduct the president’s impeachment trial.
Specifically, House Democrats want Senate Republicans to subpoena witnesses who the House refused to call during its impeachment proceedings. Most Republican senators are opposed to calling witnesses, but it would take only four Republican senators siding with Democrats to open Trump's trial to witness testimony.
Should they fail to get enough Republican support for witnesses, Democrats are trying to find another way to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.
The latest creative attempt is the claim that because, pursuant to the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts is presiding over the trial, he can unilaterally call witnesses. If this is true, House impeachment managers could bypass the Senate to get what they want from Roberts, if the chief justice agreed with the Democratic position.
The most prominent airing of this argument so far is an op-ed in The New York Times by law professors Neal Katyal and Joshua Geltzer, and former Rep. Marvin “Mickey” Edwards, R-Okla. They say that the Senate’s impeachment trial rules give Roberts the sole power to issue subpoenas.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
By Steven Nelson
January 30, 2020 | 11:34pm
Why would Roberts do that? He’s trying too hard to play the middle of the road.
No. He cannot. Neither can he call them before the USSC in a trial.
Judges do not bring the cases.
I’ll credit the DEMs with having an unlimited supply of nutty legal theories.
Roberts is the presiding officer. He does not have the power of the senate. If he unilaterally takes over the process, subject to rejection on a ruling by ruling basis by the senate, it would be as much of a constitutional crisis as Peolisi hijacking the power of the whole house to issue subpoenas.
I do have to say though, given the quality of people who are in the federal government, that any one of them could claim to be king is actually expected. I’m more shocked when they follow the rules than when they break them.
Judges can NOT write law - that’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
BUT...that’s exactly what Roberts did to pass Hussein44’s CommieCare
Deep State Roberts is a controlled asset and will do whatever he’s told by his masters.
I am no scholar, but the way I understand the Constitution is that the trial part of the proceedings happens in the House and the Senate is the deliberative body determining whether or not the House succeeded in making the case - not continue the House trial. How do you read it?
FOR THOSE THAT WILL COMMENT AS USUAL WITHOUT READING ANY ARTICLES POSTED I WILL GIVE YOU THE ANSWER PER THE WRITER QUOTE:
“These authors are brilliant and exhibit their creative side in their op-ed. But they are wrong.”
“Why would Roberts do that? He’s trying too hard to play the middle of the road.”
You forgot the sarcasm tag
Even the pwned Roberts’ handlers want this over, so the Rats can go campaign against Trump.
I’ve questioned before whether the Rat Senators would anyway, as they don’t follow any other laws they don’t like.
We must never ever ever underestimate Nanzi .....and her political ambitions.
She KNOWS DAM WELL, the Senate is not going to remove or punish Trump.....she knew that from the getgo.
So listen very carefully to every word she's saying now......she's lying in wait, timing it to play the aces she's holding up her sleeve.
Then again, Trump (and Mitch) also have a few cards to play.....and Trump is much better at playing cards than Nanzi.
Boy these neverTrumpers are the kings of wishful thinking
Nan has lost it. Trump didn’t bow and scrap to her so she has made this personal, as Nadless and Schiffforbrains have. I believe she thinks she has cards to play but her unhinged diatribe yesterday shows she is just flailing - except inside her own alcohol soaked mind.
The fact that the House Managers are suggesting Chief Justics Roberts can call witnesses shows to me that Roberts is part of the Swamp.
The feds already run roughshod over the constitution. Nancy's just more direct about it.
I view the whole lot of them, the federal government as a whole, as enemy of the people and of the constitution. Of course they say they are not, but it is trivial to point out all the dishonesty, over-reach and so on.
Only the big stuff makes the news, like the FISA abuse recently did. I figure what we see is the norm, not the exception.
Actually, the House’s role in impeachment is akin to that of prosecutor and grand jury. The prosecution (usually the House judicial committee) presents its case to the full House (grand jury), and the full House says either yea or nay as to the merits, and if “yea” then Articles of Impeachment (indictment) are drawn up and presented to the Senate (court) for trial. The Senate serves as both judge and jury at the trial.
Chief Obama Injustice Roberts can do whatever he wants, because he is literally God.
Um, I did read the article.
The answer remains “no.”
THere is going to be hell to pay for this moment
Daily Caller
@DailyCaller
At the end of tonight’s impeachment trial proceedings, Jerry Nadler gets up to give the House manager last word and Adam Schiff tries to call him back yelling “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.”
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1223092093691842560
“The fact that the House Managers are suggesting Chief Justics Roberts can call witnesses shows to me that Roberts is part of the Swamp.”
Maybe so, but the House Managers are playing to the low informed voters and giving the MSM talking points.
It is doubtful that Roberts would accede to the House Managers suggestions ( brown-nosing).
Anything Roberts were to try could be immediately over ruled by Senate vote.
These authors are brilliant and exhibit their creative side in their op-ed. But they are wrong.
First, what they try to find unwritten in Rule V is actually written in Rule VI, which gives the “power to compel the attendance of witnesses” to the “Senate,” not to the presiding officer.
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.