Chief Justice Roberts Is Right: An Unelected Official Should Not Cast Tie-Breaking Votes

The Federalist ^ | February 1, 2020 | Erielle Davidson

[cabbieguy]

I would like to know what the lefties have on Roberts to get him to make such awful decisions on Obamacare and census citizenship cases.

[norwaypinesavage]

I don’t give Roberts any credit for reading this speech at all. It simply states what he SAYS he would do, knowing that he won’t actually have to do it. He’s already demonstrated that he is a wishy-washy Swamp Rat. I don’t trust him at all.

[txnativegop]

Well then, if we retake the House we could impeach him.

[norwaypinesavage]

Would he preside over his own impeachment, then?

[txnativegop]

I don’t know and hadn’t thought of that, I assume the most senior justice would preside in such a circumstance.

[Buttons12]

"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed"

Does Roberts mean to imply that if he did break the tie, he would do it in favor of the Dems?

[nicollo]

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The office of the Vice President was empty during the Johnson impeachment.

[Bshaw]

That was my exact thought! Pence is the President of the Senate, and the tie-breaking vote!!!

What it exposes, is how little Roberts actually knows about our constitution!

Fool? Traitor? Both?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Clearly, when impeaching the president, it would be uncouth to have the vice president casting such votes, given the warped incentive structure impeachment might present for the vice president.

Likewise:

Crazy Bernie and Fauxcahontas et al, should not be allowed to vote.

[FreeReign]

If Roberts had allowed the man’s name to be known, when the case(s) reached the Supreme Court he would have to recuse himself.

No, not at all.

[txnativegop]

Well then, I stand corrected.

[Crucial]

True, but that is specifically spelled out. I just thought in a Constitutional manner. Why can’t John Roberts, unless we’re just making stuff upas we go.

[alexander_busek]

That was my exact thought! Pence is the President of the Senate, and the tie-breaking vote!!! What it exposes, is how little Roberts actually knows about our constitution! Fool? Traitor? Both?

The only explanation I can offer is that the questioner is positing a scenario in which the President of the Senate chooses to not exercise his tie-breaking vote.

Regards,

[ronnie raygun]

And wrong about not accepting rand pauls question during the hearing because it had the name of the idolized sacred whistleblower who is in with the deep state. Traitor Roberts

[ronnie raygun]

Hey how’s that illegal adoption coming along? Still hiding it? sure you are and Obama knew it and that’s why we got Obama care! you are compromised

[Liz]

C/J Roberts asserted: “If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them,
divide equally on a motion, normal rule is that the motion fails."

Amazing conservative statement.......underlining what we here all believe: the people are in control of the government.

==================================================

ROBERTS SUMS UP: I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government,
to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he explained.

Just wondering....does that also apply to interim appointees to the Congress?