The Second Impeachment: Chief Justice Roberts and the Courage of Roger Scruton

American Thinker ^ | 01/26/2021 | Christopher Chantrill

[SeekAndFind]

We conservatives are pretty pissed off at John Roberts, Chief Justice. We remember the cartoon of a week or so ago when the United States Supreme Court was represented as three donkeys, four chickens, and, on the end of the row, two Americans: Justice Alito and Justice Thomas.

But now our Democratic friends want to have a trial of Citizen Trump in the Senate. So I looked up the text of the Constitution online. It says

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Ahem. Do you see the problem here, you strict constructionists, you living constitutionalists, and you, Sen. Chuck E. Schumer (D-NY)? When the proposed trial begins on February 8, Roberts, CJ, can say -- should say -- to the assembled duly sworn multitude: “Sorry chaps. The President of the United States is not on trial. Citizen Trump is on trial. So it would be against the Constitution as written for the Chief Justice to preside. And it would be a grievous blow to the dignity of the Supreme Court and the plain meaning of the Constitution if the Chief Justice were to preside in flagrant violation of the plain words of the Constitution.”

This should not be that hard for the Chief Justice. Back in the day, did he not say, with plain words, in his decision on Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District:

[Diogenesis]

dirty ‘judge’ Roberts should be on TRIAL, NOW.

ObamaCARE: he lied and forced TAXES on Americans illegally
for his beloved Malta and Vatican.

POTUS: he hates GEOTUS. HATES. even got caught saying it.

Epstein Island, Ireland, Taken Children, Raped Children,
Murdered Children: very bad. very very bad.
He brings a whole NEW Atrocity to SCOTUS. Disgusting.

2020 Election: Belongs in HELL but wants his pension anyway
after his TREASON and SEDITION. No wonder he is HIDING.

[rlmorel]

I can no longer say aloud what I feel towards this person, nor what I think should be done with him.

[BenLurkin]

“shall” is a very powerful word in the law.

But then, the law means nothing to those who currently run our national government.

[livius]

Roger Scruton is great! He suffered a lot for his views, was dumped by publishers and universities, but still kept on writing brilliant books.

He also wrote a great non-philosophical, non-political book called I Drink Therefore I Am. It’s about wine and his memories of different wines, different places he drank them, different events in his life. A very good read!

That said, I had read that Roberts had been interviewed and said that he would not preside because this was not a trial but a political proceeding. He’s absolutely right, of course, it’s not matter for trial and is really just an intra-Senate political proceeding of one party against another. The Chief Justice is not only not needed for this, it would probably be unconstitutional for him to preside.

[gloryblaze]

Yes, Justice Roberts has declined. Leaky will preside. I heard this on the a.m. radio. And see link:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chief-justice-roberts-a-back-channel-no-on-presiding-over-trump-impeachment-reboot/

[wny]

This is how to handle it:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=animal+hoiuse+courtroom+scene&view=detail&mid=504EC38B02F242A63942504EC38B02F242A63942&FORM=VIRE

[max americana]

Ah me too. This puke needs to “go”..

[rigelkentaurus]

The Senate has no authority to put a private citizen on trial. None.

Since all branches of government have now thrown out the Constitution, I guess anything goes. The Senate could spend their full time as a reconstituted Star Chamber. Indict, try, punish political opponents all in secret, and without allowing any defense.

[pepsionice]

If you sit and think about....just starting this case with a out-of-office President, it was going to fail Constitutionally.

With Roberts running this...the case would have to come to the Supreme Court. Since he participated....he couldn’t handle the case would be out of this totally.

Adding to it...various errors on his part would have gotten Judge Thomas’s attention and he would have written a 50-page negative review of Robert’s handling of the case. Thomas would have been laughing for weeks over the poor handling.

So Roberts saw the landscape...knew it was a zero-value case and avoided the mess.

[MHGinTN]

IF Leaky Leahy presides, his vote should be disqualified in the final count for conflict of interest grounds/ of course, the law and justice is foreign to the demon rats.

[Sacajaweau]

Here’s my thought on Grassley...As a Senator he would have a vote on any issue or law. But as the sitting “judge” in the impeachment, I believe he has no vote....just as Roberts had no vote. The judge in an impeachment does nothing more but keep the peace.

[hanamizu]

The Constitution’s reason for having the CJ preside at impeachment trials of Presidents is to avoid having the VP preside, which involve an obvious conflict of interest. (Remember, when the Constitution was written, the VP was who came in 2nd in the EC vote). Trump is not President, therefore the CJ is not required to preside.

There is a problem with the Senate holding a trial of a private citizen. The Founders didn’t want Congress holding trials of citizens, they banned Bills of Attainder to keep it from happening. Couldn’t a Senate trial of citizen Trump be considered a bill of attainder?

[Sacajaweau]

https://kiwaradio.com/local-news/sen-grassley-questions-legality-of-impeaching-trump-as-private-citizen/

[Widget Jr]

We remember the cartoon of a week or so ago when the United States Supreme Court was represented as three donkeys, four chickens, and, on the end of the row, two Americans: Justice Alito and Justice Thomas.

Does anyone have a link to that cartoon?

[Bratch]

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically identifies the limitations of impeachment.

It's mentioned in other writings by the Founding Fathers but I'm sure the Left has war-gamed this and decided it's up to the interpretation of the legislators.

Will the SCOTUS step in?

Who knows?

[veracious]

For eternity, Roberts and score hundred thousands of DCians will be remembered for their evil activity in the destruction of what used to be USA.

[Sacajaweau]

I wrote the same but said Grassley by mistake. The “judge” has no vote in an impeachment trial. He is “non-political” just as Roberts would be.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: There’s nothing in the Constitution that specifically identifies the limitations of impeachment.

Here’s the key sentence:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

The key word is understanding the conjunction *and*

I understand it to mean that AFTER REMOVAL FROM OFFICE THROUGH A SENATE TRIAL, the one removed will be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust or profit.

But note the words — SHALL NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. <-— That is the purpose of impeachment.

Trump is NOT in office. How does this make the Senate trial constitutional?

[GOP Poet]

bookmark