Posted on 01/25/2021 12:07:20 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Updated at 2:57 p.m. ET
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump's trial in the Senate, a Senate source tells NPR. Leahy, 80, is the president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional role given to the longest-serving lawmaker in the majority party. The president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, after the vice president and House speaker.
"I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate," Leahy told reporters. "I don't think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours."
Leahy added: "I'm not presenting the evidence. I am making sure that procedures are followed. I don't think there's any senator who over the 40-plus years I've been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure."
Chief Justice John Roberts presided over President Trump's first impeachment trial, but now that Trump is a former president, Roberts is not constitutionally obligated to preside.
House impeachment managers will deliver the article of impeachment to the Senate Monday evening, and the trial is scheduled to begin the week of Feb. 8.
On Jan. 13, Trump became the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice by the U.S. House of Representatives. House Democrats brought one article of impeachment — "incitement of insurrection" — related to remarks he made to a crowd loyal to him Jan. 6 that resulted in a fatal riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump, the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush in the 1990s, lost the November election to Biden, but has repeatedly and baselessly challenged the results citing little or false evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
-PJ
He cannot.
It’s the CJ of the SCOTUS or nothing.
It would not be recognized by anyone by crazies as a legitimate
impeachment conviction.
OK, let’s take a look at this “Impeachment” procedure…
The Constitution calls for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside; even the inestimable John Roberts couldn’t bring himself to participate in this farce, and you’ll note that no one else on SCOTUS has offered or was requested to fill-in for the role.
So that leaves the following individuals who will act [sic] as the presiding officer of the trial:
–President of the Senate, VP Kamala Harris, who is next in line of succession to the Presidency, and an active party in bringing these charges to Congress (she either had the good sense to recuse herself, or more likely thought it was the best political calculation);
–President pro Tempore Patrick Leahy, who is also 3rd in the line of succession, and a prominent member of the litigating party as well.
Charges against the former President are being shepherded by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who just happens to be second in line of succession and is primarily responsible for this colossal joke of a “trial”… Gross conflicts of interest anybody??
You’re right, I was wrong. Sorry.
The RATs will deem it passed. (move along, prolls)
To say I am at a loss for words after reading this would be an understatement...
Common sense says that Black is a bit wrong. If the Constitution of the United States explicitly directs the Chief Justice of SCOTUS to preside over an impeachment trial and refuses to do so because he thinks it is either illegal, improper or for whatever reason not valid he has played a part.
The U.S. Supreme Court holds in agreement with Black.
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
[excerpt from Syllabus]
A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. Pp. 229-236.
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 238. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 239.
Unanimous, 9-0.
I think even Chief Justice Roberts know this, but rather than shoot down the effort, made a smarmy comment that said something like, "I'm not going to preside over this because the President is no longer in office..."
Well, no sh&t. Of course he's not in office...so what then, are they impeaching?
If the GOP had any decency, they'd claim the Senate to be a kangaroo court, and not take part in these proceedings.
At some point, I think they're trying to draw Donald Trump back into something...
WE HAVE A WINNER.! Give that man a cigar....
Roberts has already played a part by not participating. I understand your comment and citing but the reality is that Roberts is doing nothing and by that non-action he is participating in basically stating that he is not required by the constitution to be judge in this issue.
Sen. Patrick Leahy To Preside Over Trump’s Senate Impeachment Trial
Sen. Patrick Leahy To Preside Over Trump’s Senate Impeachment Show
There fixed it.
Kinda what I said in post 21
Roberts is doing nothing and by that non-action he is participating in basically stating that he is not required by the constitution to be judge in this issue.
By observing that this is the impeachment trial of a former president, CJ Roberts is only observing that he has no constitutional duty to act as presiding officer or to play any part in the proceedings.
So declining to play a part cannot rationally be construed as participating.
“If they are trying a non-sitting president, the CJ does not have to preside.”
Exactly where does the Constituion say they have the right to try an ex President. The “non-sitting president” BS won’t fly, it’s complete nonsense.
We face a situation somewhat similar to the British American colonies when Parliament began to act unconstitutionally. I think Sam Adams and his movement to start Committees of Correspondence across the colonies was very wise in that he created regional groups who communicated with each other to solve what would become a national confrontation. By not resorting to violence immediately when they felt their rights were denied, they were able to set up an alternative governmental structure to create a continuum of law and order.
I’m praying that the Republican governors will start to think in these terms very soon.
Ossoff, the new senator from Georgia, is about 18.
I like your history and idea as I was thinking of doing just this with small groups of people meeting and discussing things. Problem is that you we will have to be very careful because there is so much more surveillance than there has ever been before. Vetting needs to be top notch as well.
I wasn’t necessarily meaning to wait for the politicians to do something, rather groups of citizens who represent a cross section of interests (business, legal, academics, medical, etc.) can approach conservative governors and set up groups who can also correspond with similar groups in other conservative states.
History records more often than not “taking the bull by the horns” usually results in being gored!
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.