No, Roberts has decided (quite properly, IMO) that as Trump is not a sitting President is is not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to preside over such an event.
I’m no lawyer, but I thought part of the Democrat goal was to bar Trump from future office. That possible penalty is built into the Constitution, as a potential outcome of a senate trial of a president, presided over by the CJ.
If they recognize that Trump is not president, and if the CJ is not going to preside, then doesn’t this smell even more like a Bill of Attainder where a legislative body votes to punish someone?
No, Roberts has decided (quite properly, IMO) that as Trump is not a sitting President is is not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to preside over such an event.
++++
I haven’t heard confirmation yet that Roberts has declined but you are absolutely correct that, since Trump is now a private citizen, he is not required to preside over the trial. The Constitution is quite clear on that.
But who chose Leahy? What was the process?
Just a heads up. The real thing to watch here regardless of who presides over the trial is the ADMIISSION OF EVIDENCE AND SELECTION OF WITNESSES. I am still convinced that the Dems, because they are the Senate majority, are the ultimate decider of what evidence is admissable and what witnesses can be called.
Someone should correct me if I’m wrong about that but it how I read the Senate rules for the conduct of the trial.
No, Roberts has decided (quite properly, IMO) that as Trump is not a sitting President is is not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to preside over such an event.
::::::
Robert’s speciality. Just defer everything back to Congress and never let them know the founders formed the constitution to prevent political games like this trial
He should be lowering the boom on them along with all other justices