Posted on 01/24/2021 3:30:25 AM PST by RandFan
Sen. Rand Paul says that a Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts would be an illegitimate process.
“If Justice Roberts won’t preside over this sham ‘impeachment’ then why would it ever be considered legitimate?” the Kentucky Republican tweeted Friday. “Hint: It won’t be.”
Later in the day, Paul joined Fox News’s Sean Hannity and elaborated on his impeachment stance, calling it an “illegitimate procedure” if Roberts isn’t there.
“It isn’t a real impeachment. It’s going to be a fake, partisan impeachment,” Paul said about a process without Roberts.
“The story is,” Paul continued, “that the chief justice is not going to be asked, but the reason he’s not going to be asked is he’s privately said he’s not supposed to come unless it’s an impeachment of the president.”
“So, this is an illegitimate procedure,” he said. “And even the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who's not a rabid Trump person, who's actually, if anything, sort of in the middle, he is now saying this is illegitimate because I’m not getting in the middle of this and I’m not coming over for this.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
From my perspective Chief Justice John Roberts is saying that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
The constitution requires the CJ to lead an impeachment trial. Roberts says he doesn’t need to be there since they are not impeaching a president. Ergo, the impeachment trial in unconstitutional.
Thoughts?
We have a new reality.
The Constitution has become totally meaningless.
Only those communists in power can say what is allowed and "legal".
The complete & total elimination of our sovereign borders is next.
This is a bill of attainder. Barred by the constitution.
Its illegitimate with Roberts. I would be surprised if Trump bothers to put on a defense. There’s nothing they can do to him. I’m looking to see 50% of these corrupt despicables gone by April.
I don’t see how your post relates to anything I said in my post. Can you clarify?
A possible analogy is a decree of divorce after one spouse has died: no wife or husband, no divorce. It’s really that simple.
—
Good analogy.
President Trump needs to write a letter and play no further part in this Stalinist show trial. China Mitch is going to try to use the GOP voting to not convict to rehabilitate the GOP after they certified the stolen election.
Yes I think Trump should ignore it.
But I think Trump is going to let the criminals in Congress commit the crime. Everyday more people unmask.
Thoughts are you’re spot on.
A laughable sham impeachment in the House, and the much greater laughable sham trial in the Senate, given the absence of both Justice and also the Chief Justice.
Both exercises are total theater without said president in office to impeach nor the cover of the Constitution to do it. The latter here would be true even if Roberts were willing to preside.
Then he becomes the equally laughable *CJ... (aka) “Comedian Justice of the Supreme Court”. :)
“ The “civil rights movement” worked because its opponents were, for the most part, decent Christian people.
In our situation, that is not the case.”
It actually is the case. Trump voters vote for tge country they do not worship Trump’s. They don’t hang onto every word he says. I’ve never even been on twitter and I know what he’s doing
He is honest, law and order, he loves this country, he takes very good care of his family and people voted for him 10 million more in 2020 than theu did in 2016 after learning what a decent person he is
So I disagree.
Read it again.
WE cannot practice passive resistance BECAUSE our opponents are NOT decent Christian people.
“ The “civil rights movement” worked because its opponents were, for the most part, decent Christian people.”
What opponents?
White Southerners.
If Joe dies will Jill file for divorce?
“ The “civil rights movement” worked because its opponents were, for the most part, decent Christian people.
In our situation, that is not the case. The Mahatma himself said that Satyagraha could only have worked against the British, that with either Hitler or Stalin it would simply have led to a bloodbath.“
Whatever. I don’t get your argument. Sorry I responded to begin with
Justice Roberts—The man who saddled us with Obamacare—will be there, robes and all. The left has something on him and will force him to preside. His true colors are on display. The Fact that the Court didn’t hear Trumps case—not rule on it—just used a loophole to skate out of the bitter Election grab by the Democrats. Mark my words—this will not be a profile in courage moment for him and will stain his robes for years to come. With him in charge—no need to pack the courts.
Yes, start the war—FBI has all the people identified—at the first sign they will snuff out any rebellion and into the camps will go all the “Enemies of Freedom” “Racist White Supremist” and other “Trump Cultists” Lock em up and spread fear—Worked for Stalin and Hitler. Will work here too—for a while.
So if Roberts does agree to preside does that make it legitimate?
I would argue that impeaching a private citizen is illegitimate. However I am not sure how the SC would rule on that issue because Roberts can’t be trusted.
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.