Posted on 02/08/2021 4:29:49 AM PST by Kaslin
As Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins today, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding.
Senate Democrat Richard Blumenthal, a lawyer, former federal prosecutor and member of the Judiciary Committee, believes the Chief Justice should preside.
Elizabeth Warren adopts the far more aggressive position that the Chief Justice must preside as part of “his constitutional duty.” For good measure, she adds, “I can’t imagine why a Supreme Court justice would not do his duty.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer presents yet a third constitutional argument. He claims that the Constitution commits the decision as a matter of choice to the Chief Justice: “The Constitution says the chief justice presides for a sitting president. So it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who is no longer sitting, Trump, and he doesn’t want to do it.” Senator Leahy, who has been designated to preside, agrees that the Chief Justice would be “the first choice.”
All of these assertions are manifestly incorrect and for reasons of considerable bearing on the proceeding.
Working in order, Blumenthal does not pretend to a legal argument. He wants the Chief Justice to preside for its beneficial public relations impact. The world’s greatest deliberative body merits better than this, especially given Blumenthal’s senior status on the Judiciary Committee of all things.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It will be a lynching, with the 'judge' voting as part of the jury. And the Dims know a lot about lynching people.
No defensive evidence will be allowed to be presented.
All prosecution materials will be anecdotal.
Many, many lies will be told by the Dims.
The need for a super-majority will be set aside for a simple majority vote, with Heels-Up voting to convict.
If this circus is not the impetus for term limits, I don't know what is.
There is no Constitutional question involved here. The Chief Justice is required to preside over the impeachment trial of the President, but for the impeachment of anyone else, the Senate’s presiding officer conducts the trial. The true reason this was done was to avoid conflicts of interest. Constitutionally, the job of presiding over the Senate is given to the Vice President. The Founders recognized that having the person who would replace a convicted President conduct the impeachment trial is a serious conflict of interest and certainly could make it difficult for an impeached President to get a fair trial. Since the VP would not replace any other impeached Federaloffive holder, there’s no such conflict. Therefore, since Trump isn’t the President, Roberts should not preside.
Of course the whole thing is silly anyway. The only punishment that the Senate can impose is removal from office, which is of course moot, and disqualification from holding office in the future. I suppose the second is on the Dems mind, but it’s not likely Trump will run again anyway. The real reason for it is to further discredit Trump and anyone who actually might come along and try to run on similar policies, whether as a GOP or a third party candidate. They aren’t looking for a conviction; if they actually thought he’s guilty of inciting, he’d be criminally charged, not impeached. They’d love nothing more than to see Trump frog marched off to prison. They know he isn’t guilty and that there’s no way they’d ever get a criminal conviction, though, so they are using impeachment as a political stunt.
Sequals rarely are an improvement over the original. Why do Rats think a 2nd impeachment will be an improvement? Does the MSM think it’s a ratings bonanza? It won’t be. And when it is over, then what? A third impeachment? Endless impeachment’s?
“Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. ”
(1984)
Roberts has already done that why should this event not be included?
No. A simple majority cannot convict. A 2/3's majority is specified in the Constitution. It is not a matter for the Senate to chose a simple majority.
Richard, John Kerry, Hillary and AOC were all in a swiftboat when they came under sniper fire and white supremiscts attacking. They hid in the boat and heard bang bang bang where is she. The it’s a small world ride operator then said again come on out other people want to ride too.
Fake government, fake court, fake trial.
The government has abdicated, and I applaud.
Who needs them?
We are free!
Witness number 1 for Trump should be Chief Justice Roberts for why he not presiding over this Kangaroo Court.
From the article:
"Justice Roberts is not presiding in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump because he has no constitutional authority to preside. It is not a choice. Likewise, the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of the President, not by choice, but by constitutional mandate. He must preside. These are flip sides of the same coin. With the sole exception of presiding over the trial of the president, the judiciary cannot and does not have any role in Congress. The Constitution is built on the scaffolding of separation of powers."
Nope the Dems are so full of themselves that the next step, after the acquittal of Trump will be to impeach Chief Justice Roberts for failing to perform his “constitutional duty” to preside of the impeachment trial. They need a villain to blame for their failure to convict.
Don’t worry these people are all going to face punishment and soon.
Yeah,
Don’t hold your breath there pal.
btt
When they see they don't have 67 votes in this farce, they WILL change the rules. Constitutionality or not, they cannot afford for DJT to run again in 4 years. The Dims aren't smart enough to try to steal two elections.
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.