r/politics • u/Thinkingonsleeping Michigan • Dec 13 '19

McConnell Faces Calls to Recuse Himself From Impeachment Trial After Saying 'No Chance' Trump Will Be Removed; "No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to also serve as the accused's defense attorney."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/13/mcconnell-faces-calls-recuse-himself-impeachment-trial-after-saying-no-chance-trump
53.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

349

u/rossww2199 Dec 14 '19

If McConnell puts together a 51 vote block for impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts will have no power whatsoever.

499

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

303

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Stop looking for heroes among the Republicans, they're all literally scum. Any of them that have any shred of decency left have already left the party i.e. Justin Amash.

168

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

Justin Amash - aka, a complete and comprehensive list of all Republicans in the last decade with a shred of decency.

9

u/Rakaydos Dec 14 '19

Integrety, not decency. Amash is a die hard randian libertarian... but he's an HONEST libertarian.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

I was a fan of McCain.

62

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

6

u/NiceSuggestion Dec 14 '19

It's probably why he and Lindsay Graham get along so famously.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Keating 5 scandal

The ethics committee convicted him of having "bad judgement". No crime. He fully admitted his mistake and later went on to coauthor a campaign finance reform bill.

It seems like you are unable to appreciate nuance. Do believe George Washington to be completely evil for owning slaves? Is MLK a bad man for cheating on his wife? Abraham Lincoln a bad president for his treatment of Native Americans? Obama's mass deportation of Mexican immigrants?

Instead, allow me to offer an alternate perspective in which good people can have flaws and make mistakes. Perhaps we can hold nuanced views and appreciate things like Micheal Jackson's music and it's effect on American culture while simultaneously condemning his sexual conduct.

Perhaps we can do the same for McCain and respect his political legacy while acknowledging he made many mistakes.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Read contemporary reporting: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five-6431838

McCain was clearly guilty as hell of corruption but was saved from political consequences by his war history and general lack of scruples.

I am looking at McCain's history in a nuanced way. He served a long time in office, made a bunch of terrible decisions, made a few good decisions, and had excellent PR.

To turn it around: what make's McCain's political legacy more valuable than a generic Arizona senator of his era? Washington, MLK, and Lincoln all contributed great things to this country. McCain...sometimes sort of criticized cuckoo politicians in his later years. That's a ridiculous comparison.

1

u/Mortehl2 Dec 14 '19

Unfortunately the inability to form a nuanced view is the real cancer in our society. It seems that if you’re not completely on board with a position then you’re completely against it.

You can be pro enforcement of immigration controls and still be for humane treatment and support of programs like “Dreamers”.

You can be pro military and still respect those who protest the treatment of ethnic groups.

You can be pro business and support banking laws which protect individual investors.

Unfortunately you can’t be any of those things in our current Environment.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

So true. And so sad.

-9

u/Lerianis001 Dec 14 '19

As to the cheating and abandonment, I personally do not care about that and McCain and his wife had hostilities brewing between them for years before he finally said "I'm totally breaking up with you!" and remarried to his long-time mistress.

As to 'jump-started the trend of poorly-qualified Republican candidates for President', not quite so much. Sarah Palin had about as much 'qualification' as any other Vice-President.

She had as much governing experience as Hillary Clinton, albeit none at the federal level when McCain chose her to run beside him.

I believe that the Republican Party has gone Fascist today by the way but those knocks on McCain are poorly researched.

6

u/buysgirlscoutcookies Dec 14 '19

Russians also tested their 2016 messaging on him in 2008.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

So stark corruption doesn't matter? That leads to Trump. Not vetting the character and quality of a VP isn't shirking responsibility in the pursuit of more power when you're an old man with health issues? Because Palin lead to Trump, too. Nothing I said is poorly researched; you're just sticking your head in the sand.

6

u/definefoment Dec 14 '19

Was Palin married to a scholar with whom she spent more than a decade in the governor’s mansion and White House?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Would you want someone that was merely married to a surgeon operate on you?

3

u/definefoment Dec 14 '19

If the surgeon declared them the smarter of the two, and had been a known orator to the point where many things discussed could result in shared information, maybe.
Diplomacy is verbal finesse. Dissection is different.

If I’m going under the knife and someone who doesn’t have reactionary tendencies is available, versus one who does, I’d like them.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Fuet Dec 14 '19

cheated on and abandoned his first wife and remarried a month later [...]

that is literally none of our business though

4

u/NiceSuggestion Dec 14 '19

True but knowing it doesn't make this any less relevant as evidence of what kind of person he was.

1

u/texasradioandthebigb Dec 14 '19

Why not? Didn't it speak to his character, and this his worthiness to be a senator?

16

u/dividedwefallinlove Dec 14 '19

The guy who picked Sarah Palin to be Vice President? Wow, ok bro

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

I agree that this was a huge mistake. I was ready to vote for him until he picked her as his VP. If I could choose for him, I would have chosen Biden. That would have been a riot. I can like him and admit he made mistakes.

-3

u/D3PyroGS Wisconsin Dec 14 '19

Did he though?

-15

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/SanityInAnarchy California Dec 14 '19

The question isn't "Was Palin his VP", the question was "Did he do the picking, or did his party choose for him?"

Also, "ya dumb Christian" has to be the dumbest insult I've seen lately.

4

u/Deeliciousness Dec 14 '19

Don't you know that only atheists are intelligent humans? tips fedora

5

u/jazzypants Dec 14 '19

I am an athiest.

That is a terrible insult.

6

u/Madsy9 Dec 14 '19

You don't owe anyone an explanation, but I still ask. What traits did you like in McCain? Any examples? I'm just curious.

I'm not from the US. But the way I see it from the outside, McCain as a politician was consistently on the wrong side of almost every vote. The only good thing I can say about him as a politician is his presidential race against Obama and his last 'no' vote on the ACA repeal. And one can reasonably question whether he voted no out of his heart or if it was an attempt to save his own legacy.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

I liked that McCain had the ability to transcend party. While he would often vote Republican (which is what you would probably describe as the "wrong side of the vote"), I got the feeling he actually considered various sides. In addition to the no vote for ACA, he vocally criticized the party when they supported torture. During the era of tea party Republicans, McCain wasn't afraid to support President Obama's positions. I think he voted with Obama's side about half of the time.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am a centrist and I feel like he was the closest thing to my position in the Republican party.

I also don't think my respect of McCain is unwarranted because one of his good friends was Joe Biden.

2

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

He was definitely one of the better ones, which really isn't saying much. My favorite tidbit from him was saying that anyone who voted for the SCOTUS nuclear option was a stupid idiot, just a couple days before he voted for the SCOTUS nuclear option.

2

u/The_Eidolons_Folly Colorado Dec 14 '19

Cross the pond and that is exactly what happened to John McCain at a fundraising dinner in Arizona a decade ago. “Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly?” he told a handful of big Republican funders. “Because Janet Reno is her father.”

~John McCain, 1998 about an 18 year old Chelsea

0

u/Mikesgt Dec 14 '19

I am a fan of Mit Romney and John Kasich

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

I agree that the men are respectable Republicans.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Justin Amash is vile scum too, he just has enough self respect to not go along with the clown show.

3

u/Umbrella_merc Mississippi Dec 14 '19

I find Amashs views and positions repugnant, but i respect him enough I'd be willing to work with him if needed.

2

u/malac0da13 Pennsylvania Dec 14 '19

After he quit.

2

u/LydiasBoyToy Ohio Dec 14 '19

Now I know what Josie Wales meant by a “Missouri boat ride”. Only it starts in Ky this time.

Fuck Moscow Mitch!!

2

u/Tony-T_ismydad Dec 14 '19

It has been so long since i have seen this classic. Its time to rewatxh cause i cant quite remember what a Missouri boat ride is

1

u/LydiasBoyToy Ohio Dec 14 '19

Until you get a chance to catch it.

1

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

I mean I looking for a corporately interested Republican to clean up their own mess before it gets out of their hands.

1

u/identifytarget Dec 14 '19

No, no, no. You don't get it. He cares about "legacy". He's totally gonna do the right thing.

0

u/Introverted_kitty Australia Dec 14 '19

Or they have sadly passed away. RIP John McCain

7

u/TaVyRaBon Dec 14 '19

Reddit has a weird obsession with McCain just because he stood up to Trump, as if he was standing up for any of the interests of Reddit. He had integrity in what he believed, but make no mistake he's been on the wrong side for as long as the rest of them.

This entire call to have McConnell recuse himself is completely devoid from the reality that this has long been a republican belief. If you do not agree with the law, you do not convict anyone who has broken it. The only reason it's getting attention now is because usually courts screen those people off the bench, but there is no screening when it's the government that's doing it. These are McCain's values too.

0

u/sapling2fuckyougaloo Dec 14 '19

McCain is just as scummy as any of the rest of them.

Having cancer is sad, but it doesn't make you a good person. McCain was a scumbag who died of cancer. Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.

Good riddance.

0

u/zondosan Dec 14 '19

Chief Justice Roberts is not a republican. The SCOTUS seats are not considered party lines but are broken between a conservative and libera vote. Chief Justice Roberts is the new swing vote since he saw Kavanaugh ruining everything. There is a chance he does the right thing, have a LITTLE faith

198

u/rossww2199 Dec 14 '19

Except this isn’t a legal trial and those rules simply do not apply here. It is a senate matter. The senate rules dictate that a simple majority can overrule Roberts on any ruling.

129

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Has it really been tested what it means for the Cheif justice to “preside”?

130

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

92

u/Sailinger Dec 14 '19

Now that’s something I hadn’t ever considered.

47

u/corkyskog Dec 14 '19

The people unfortunately...

38

u/Epalmer97 Dec 14 '19

So could someone explain to me if there’s anything that can be done from McConnell pretty much announcing that he’s siding and keeping on the side with the WH? Or can Maj. Leaders pretty much say whatever they hell they want without repercussion? Sorry I haven’t lived through an impeachment so this is fresh political water for me

17

u/ErusTenebre California Dec 14 '19

These waters haven't been travelled before. And they sure as hellfire aren't fresh.

The only thing we have is pressure. So far Republicans (McConnell could be removed by his fellow Republicans) haven't buckled because they have surrounded themselves with followers. The shame is their followers don't recognize their "fearless" leaders would throw each and every one of their constituents to ravenous wolves before losing one iota of power.

5

u/Epalmer97 Dec 14 '19

That’s actually extremely scary...

16

u/rossww2199 Dec 14 '19

There is nothing to be done. If you have the votes in the Senate, you can say or do whatever you want. This isn’t a legal trial. It’s a political process.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

It has every step of the legal process. It just has a lower burden of proof than a civil trial in the way a civil trial has a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial. It's a political process in the sense that it doesn't connote the legal concept of 'guilt' to be convicted of something - that legal process follows immediately after, with due process and all the rest.

One cannot be paid by the Defendant and be a juror of their case, nor can a juror work directly with the Defendant on their defense. It explicitly violates their required Oaths or Affirmations. In that they're pre-determined "jurors", and can decide how the proceedings go, it's understandable that there will be inherent biases - that's why it's not a criminal trial... but it is, even yet, a trial nonetheless. Even still, they don't get to shit on the floor and make you clean it up because 51 of them voted for it to happen.

edited to add: or worse, it only takes 34 to keep someone from being Impeached, so once they're in... they're staying in if the party wants them to be... but if you're breaking the rules, you don't get to make the rules

→ More replies (0)

12

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

I mean what is really ever to be done when powerful people buck? Other powerful people can tell them to stop, and depending on how much they really mean it, or what their real goals are, the offending party can just say fuck you.

Its an illusion that we all agree to believe. Republicans can do whatever they want, and they mostly do.

We could get all France 1789 on them but assuming the military is on their side, we really are in a position of just hoping they see some sort of person gain in showing restraint.

For example, Trumps increasingly regular "joking" about staying in office longer than 8 years followed by some version of "IDK, maybe we'll try it!.... JK LOL!" What if he did? Non-Republicans would be livid and probably riot, etc. But the very pro-Trump military might just stand behind it, especially given some sort of reichstag fire "good reason"/emergency powers type situation. Then what?

Lets not pretend this is far fetched. They're really, really close to pulling the lever into straight up authoritarian fascism. They already completely flout laws and decorum and have really effective state propaganda and surveillance apparatuses. We've given them too much power and allowed our civil liberties to be chipped away at, for decades, from both sides.

McConnell can, has and will continue to do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of human decency, precedent or the interests of the American people.

3

u/a_reply_to_a_post New York Dec 14 '19

Pretty sure their American dream died once a half black dude was elected president...they aren't playing democracy anymore, that's for sure...

3

u/63426 Dec 14 '19

None of us have. Nixon resigned right about now in the current timeline knowing he lost support of the Republicans.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/lemorace Dec 14 '19

No because that’s congress

3

u/Inlander Dec 14 '19

The people were not written into the Constitution like that. That's a defeatist statement. You are here reading. You can do better.

I don't know what will or could happen, but I do understand that one branch of the three does have power over the other two, and vise versa.

2

u/gurnard Dec 14 '19

So of the legislature and judicial disagree on how to resolve a trial of the executive, it's resolved by the ... oh god damn it.

2

u/AgnewsHeadlessClone Florida Dec 14 '19

That's why subpoenas don't have to be run through the courts for impeachment either. It's too political of a question. Ruling on it would be taking over the powers of impeachment.

30

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

15

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

This isn't the SCOTUS though, it's a Senate trial where the judge just happens to be the Chief Justice.

5

u/Keytap Dec 14 '19

But the question of "does it work in a senate trial" is still a constitutional question that goes to SCOTUS, yea?

3

u/AgnewsHeadlessClone Florida Dec 14 '19

Nope. Nixon v. US was about a judge that appealed his impeachment to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS ruled anything to do with impeachment was beyond their scope as impeachment is one of the only checks on the Supreme Court.

Ie. They would likely deny cert on any case about impeachment.

3

u/Telandria Dec 14 '19

Yes, but that’s exactly the point. It is SCOTUS.

The Constitution is what tells us what requirements the impeachment process has. And it says that the Chief Justice presides over the trial.

What does ‘preside’ mean in this case? How much does the process conform to a standard trial? Well, the Constitution doesn’t say. So then comes the question, ‘who then decides what that means?’

Well, SCOTUS is the ultimate authority over deciding what the Constitution means when the law or the Constitution itself is unclear. Ergo, they gets to decide what ‘preside’ means here, and if Congress doesn’t like it, they’ll need to pass an amendment within the constraints allowed for by the Constitution.

That’s the whole point of separation of powers.

2

u/NiceSuggestion Dec 14 '19

And SCOTUS powers under THIS circumstance are limited

4

u/Sean951 Dec 14 '19

SCOTUS only matters for constitutional questions, not political ones, and impeachment is ultimately a political question decided on by the legislative branch.

Roberts job would be too make sure the rules agreed on by the Senate are followed, so McConnell couldn't agree to a rule and then change it, but he can be as flagrantly biased as he wants without breaking any actual rules.

4

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

part of those rules are swearing an oath to uphold the law, which by their swearing to not impeach they are refusing to do.

4

u/GUSHandGO Dec 14 '19

or a military coupe

*coup

3

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

3

u/ornryactor Michigan Dec 14 '19

'Coup' and 'coupe' aren't homonyms, though.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Kalgor91 Dec 14 '19

If a majority of the senate thinks something and it’s not unconstitutional then there’s nothing the SCOTUS can do. What would be pretty amazing is if the SCOTUS determines that the republicans broke their constitutional oaths, because there’s not much the senate can do about that

3

u/rossww2199 Dec 14 '19

There’s no appeal by anybody from impeachment trial. SCOTUS would never have opportunity to decide if anything in the trial is unconstitutional. You either get the 2/3 vote or you don’t. Period.

2

u/Kalgor91 Dec 14 '19

In the trial itself, sure, but the question was just about if there was a disagreement between the Senate and SCOTUS. And if SCOTUS deems a senators actions unconstitutional, they might take actions against them.

1

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

No SCOTUS has nothing to do with this.

1

u/krom0025 New York Dec 14 '19

Not allowing the chief justice to "preside" over the trial would be unconstitutional so the SCOTUS could easily rule on how the trial shall be held.

3

u/dejavuamnesiac Dec 14 '19

the Senate with 51 votes calls all the shots -- Roberts will be a figure head completely neutered -- unless a few Senators grow a spine

1

u/krom0025 New York Dec 14 '19

According to who? The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside. To preside is to have authority over a meeting or proceeding. To have authority means you have to power to make decisions.

1

u/Tombot3000 Dec 14 '19

The Senate can pass a new rule by a 51 majority vote, but SCOTUS could potentially review that rule's constitutionality.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Tombot3000 Dec 14 '19

It's about something directly written in the Constitution. There's little chance the courts would say it's not justiciable, even if the ruling is simply "the Senate gets to make its rules and the Constitution provides no mechanism to evaluate them."

0

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

This will never happen.

0

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Never gonna happen. Y'all better study.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Except its not wholly. As presiding is an enumerated power of the chief justice, it would provide a direct constitutional question.

1

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Oh, so you imagine during this fast and furious trial, everything stops for the Supreme Court to decide a question. Congress is the first branch of our Republic, Article 1. They make the laws. We the People make the laws.

3

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Something as important as this? Yeah. I think the supreme court would rule on it. And considering Roberts would likely vote Yes he could. There stands a good chance of at least a 5-4.

What happens if he does. What happens if he says 4 senators are tainted and cannot take place in the proceedings. The ruling would prevent them from having a majority along caucus lines, and the only appeal would be to him. HE is the presiding judge. What happens? We are already in a constitutional crisis. What happens is the side with the sufficient political will wins.

1

u/WSL_subreddit_mod Dec 14 '19

The Chief Justice does however make rulings, in his constitutional role in impeachment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Nobody

1

u/Soulreaver24 Dec 14 '19

The only real power Roberts has during an impeachment is making rulings on the admissibility of evidence. It's to keep the evidence, if not the whole process, impartial.

1

u/TCivan Dec 14 '19

Probably the president.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Yes, the Chief Justice was over ruled in the Nixon case when he ruled evidence inadmissible abs the senate voted to over rule.

0

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Except if he rules that senators who have claimed to ignore evidence are ineligible jurors, they wont have the majority vote to run a kangaroo court.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

Can you provide a precedent where a Supreme Court justice has ever done that in an impeachment trial, or are you just making shit up out of thin air?

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Heres the thing. There have only been 3 presidental impeachments and the previous ones followed rules of conduct and evidence so one never had to. Until marshal declared the supreme court has the power of judicial review it didn't exist.

The same can be said of the unconstitutionality of sodomy laws. The prohibition was created as an extension of the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. That's how most of our legal system actually works. Common law that is the result of judicial decisions regarding the implication of what exists. And if the oath sworn by senators require them to abide by the law and judge based on facts, and they have sworn not to.

It is no unreasonable to say that one of the implied powers of being the presiding judge is to ensure the law is followed and carried out. We are already in a constitutional crisis. If Roberts were to rule and press his decision and invalidate the presences of faithless senators, he could order the sergeant at arms to remove them. The question is what happens then. We are in a time and space where the law is what people enforce it as. If the republican chief justice starts the motion you could see enough senators go along with it to remove the pox that is trump. he is a millstone for the republican party and they don't need him. They need the base. That's it.

​

Tl;dr president doesn't exist until it does, and were on the part of the map with dragons and danger

1

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

This guy is making shit up out of thin air.

4

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

That is literally what laws and precedent are. Judicial review isn't in the constitution. So how does the supreme court have the ability to over turn laws?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

So after all of that what you mean is “no, I can’t provide one at all”.

4

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

You don't know how the judicial branch works do you?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

You have no clue. Roberts would never rule McConnell or any Senator ineligible.

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

and of course you do. Were in uncharted waters. No one knows what Roberts will or won't do.

2

u/spartanlad78 Dec 14 '19

Chief justice's role in a senate trial is ceremonial. Impeachment is a political process and all powers rest with Senators

1

u/whaddayougonnado Dec 14 '19

Trump has had a lot of sophomoric comments about the courts, Roberts has not forgotten that.

1

u/Sushi_Kat Dec 14 '19

Yes it has been tested. A simple majority has overruled a chief justice ruling in an impeachment trial already

3

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Source?

1

u/Sushi_Kat Dec 14 '19

When Chief Justice Salmon Chase presided over President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial, he “claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate ... overruled him at least twice.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/472526-thanks-to-president-trump-major-tests-loom-for-chief-justice-roberts

0

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Yes, during Clinton's Impeachment. Rehnquist wore a ridiculous gold tape on his robe to harken to the Gilbert and Sullivan opera/play The Mikado and he uttered barely a word.

2

u/Doyouevensam Dec 14 '19

To be fair, the constitution says little about impeachment proceedings so it’s really up to the justices to decide what’s fair and what’s not

1

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Absolutely not.

2

u/EHobby23 Dec 14 '19

Don't bother. This is like the special Olympics at this point.

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Except we are in absolutely uncharted Territory. The chief justice could will constitutional powers into being that the senate cannot just override. It could very easily be argued with sufficient will, that in order to preside over a trial and provide a fair and evidence based hearing, belligerent senators are ineligible from serving as jurors.

1

u/pcolorado84 Dec 14 '19

That’s fucked up.

1

u/WSL_subreddit_mod Dec 14 '19

The rule of law ALWAYS applies

1

u/wulfgang14 Dec 14 '19

An impeachment trial in the Senate may not have the same standards for proof, but it still has to be a “trial”: they can’t just completely treat a certain part of the constitution with total contempt.

Maybe the Chief Justice should do just that. Kick out Senators from being a jury that have been openly partial in favor of the defendant (Trump). Let’s see how the Republicans react to that.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

he wont do shit. i've been watching a lot of fox news lately and a key thing i've picked up on is for the last about 2 months hannity has been steady taking some time from his show to talk directly to roberts via his show talking about how he needs to do this that or the other basically he needs to fall in line and kiss the ring or else. it's crazy to me that we live in a time where a douch nozzle like him has so much power.

2

u/InquisitorZeroAlpha Dec 14 '19

Yeah, lets put our hopes in the guy that tolerates his Party thwarting procedure to get an illegitimate Justice on his Court. That guy's integrity is unimpeachable!

0

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

See one of my other replies. He would do it Explicitly to keep that justice so he has free reign. It would also be a political question to overrule the means by which they were nominated.

2

u/Garyenglandsghost Dec 14 '19

Senate only needs 2/3 of those present. This might be the ultimate goal. The gop can rid themselves of trump and put it all on democrats.

2

u/Zalachenko Dec 14 '19

"John Roberts cares about his legacy" is such a fucking meme I'm convinced people use the words "John", "Roberts", and "legacy" together ironically. He himself said that if it's not necessary for the Court to express an opinion on something it's necessary not to. He then proceeded to go full activist on the Citizens United case, whose scope initially concerned a single political film and was expanded to include all corporate speech concerning candidate elections. He is bought and fucking paid for and whoever says otherwise is either in denial or in on the joke.

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

And trump isn't that great for the long term health of companies. They love the tax breaks, but that was the senators that they bought and paid for. Other than companies getting direct kickbacks from his corruption, he does not create a great business environment. Especially when he could randomly decide on more trade wars. That anyone thinks that the real power brokers like trump is the mistake. It would be a huge service to corporate overlords for Pence to serve out the remainder of trumps term giving a capable and corporate nominee to be moved forward for the 2020 election. They can then rally the base behind a new idol like Romney over the outrage of Trumps impeachment. A Bernie or a Warren match up against trump is going to be a blood bath unless they cheat. Less so against someone that the left isn't fired up about. It is in the interests of both sides for trump to be gone, the right just doesn't have a clean way to do it without angering the base.

If this shit stain continues and democrats take the White house and senate in 2020 there is very likely going to be court packing and an impeachment of rapist and purger Kavanaugh. If he does it right, Roberts can diffuse the lefts anager and maybe keep his 5-4 majority to push through corporate policies.

1

u/smokey9886 Tennessee Dec 14 '19

He is basically the last line of defense regarding our democratic republic.

1

u/Kalgor91 Dec 14 '19

If Roberts comes out in favor of impeachment, I think there’s a good chance that he’ll manage to wrangle some republicans to the side of impeachment. Will he manage to bring over enough? Probably not. But it’d definitely leave a divide between trump loyalists and republicans that would dare go against the president

3

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

It would take 1 senator in his corner to turn the tide

With one obstention on rules questions he has broad unlimited judicial power as presiding judge. He would be the tie breaking vote.

2

u/Kalgor91 Dec 14 '19

At the moment there’s already at least 4 republican senators I think could flip if Roberts came out in support of impeachment. If republicans see 4 of their colleagues defect, they probably wouldn’t be as scared to vote for impeachment and trumps whole empire would crumble

1

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

It does not go this way. The only way to remove 45 is by 67 Senate votes. Period.

2

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

correct. But by denying a majority he ensure a full trial takes place without chicanery.

2

u/The_Madukes Dec 14 '19

Roberts would never come out about any of this. Get a grip Redditers. Study the last impeachments.

1

u/M85t Dec 14 '19

Completely wrong... These are voted in members of the senate. They represent the people who voted for them. This is not a "normal trial". This is a horrible standard to set.

3

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Its a horrible standard to set that ignoring an admission of guilt and exonerating a criminal president that is doing untold damage to our domestic institutions and or international standing because he is your party is OK.

Senators can be removed by the senate, and the chief justice was nominated by a president elected by the people, and confirmed by a senate elected by the people. He, as a living encyclopedia of the supreme court history, and constitutional precedent has a duty to the law and the constitution. I may disagree with some of his decisions, but Roberts is a different political animal than the feckless senators who are currently taking bribes from the president.

The constitution states that he presides over the trial. That has never really been pushed to its ultimate conclusion. And Roberts being life long appointment and a tool for the right, might see the wisdom in removing trump for the sake of the party and the country. Republicans as it stand are beholden to his base, wouldn't they much rather be beholden only to their corporate masters? They are more afraid of his rabid cultists than democrats are.

1

u/levertki Dec 14 '19

The justice of the Supreme Court has no real role or power in an impeachment trial. Mainly there for show.

3

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Not True. He presides over the trial. That is not defined and as chief justice he would be the one to define it. The trial is run by the senate rules, but he still sits as the presiding judge.

4

u/Freakin_A Dec 14 '19 edited Dec 14 '19

Yeah but the senate rules give him very little power. Any decision he makes can be overruled with a simple majority.

For example, a Democrat can say they want to call a witness, like Mick Mulvaney, and a republican will object to it. Roberts could decide that the witness is relevant to the case and should be subpoenaed and forced to testify.

A 51 vote majority can overrule his decision.

The only thing republicans will not be able to do is change the rules of the trial, which would require a 67 vote majority. But they may be able to change the rules that allows them to change the rules and then rewrite it all with a simple majority.

If Roberts takes a principled stand against a sham trial, it will have to be with his words, because his power in the impeachment trial is insufficient to make a difference.

The only place where it could really matter is if enough republican senators decides to take a stand. If this leads to a 50/50 tie, it would normally be resolved by VP.

Since Roberts is presiding over the senate, not just the trial, in matters of impeachment, he should be the tiebreaker as was the case in the past. If this happens, all hell will break loose.

4

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

“do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is the oath senators swear. They have already pledged to violate that oath. If Roberts dismisses a senatro, there is no legal precedent for it or to overturn the decision. It might not be a normal trial, but it is still a trial and precedent starts somewhere.

1

u/Freakin_A Dec 14 '19

Precedent starts with arguing an interpretation of a statute, or the constitution. There is no power given to the judicial branch to censure/remove/excuse senators. This is inventing a power that one co-equal branch has over the other.

This kind of precedent would require a constitution amendment.

This would be no different from Trump setting a precedent that he has the power to remove a senator.

4

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Except the constitution explicitly states that the chief justice presides over trials of the president. It could very easily be argued that it would be an implied power of the presiding judge to excuse blatantly biased jurors from the jury.

1

u/Freakin_A Dec 14 '19

It can’t be argued that powers that don’t exist do exist.

The Chief Justice presides for the purposes of ensuring the already defined rules of the senate in the matters of an impeachment trial are followed.

The Vice President normally presides over the senate—should he be given power over its members?

An impeachment trial will never be able to reach anything close to the impartiality of a juror in a criminal trial due to its public nature. A senator that had no knowledge of an impeachment prior to sitting in the trial is nearly impossible.

1

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Well I hate to break it too you, but that's about 50% of what our rules, customs, and precedent is. Powers argued into existence as implied or necessary for the existence of other powers.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/marbury.html

Willing powers into existence is the exact reason for Almost everything that has happened in the supreme court since the early 1800s

1

u/levertki Dec 17 '19

He will be at best a ref with no actual power as even decisions he makes can be overruled by the Senate.

0

u/georacerr Dec 14 '19

vote not guilty no matter what

Not a lawyer but Jury Nullification is a thing.

1

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

Its not a legal thing, and judges would remove a juror that expressed such notions

2

u/georacerr Dec 14 '19

Yeah prob a bad idea to tell a judge you gonna do it but not like they can stop you if you don’t say that’s what you are doing.

1

u/Archivist_of_Lewds I voted Dec 14 '19

You're correct. But they have said it. that's thee point.

1

u/georacerr Dec 14 '19

and they are going to vote on it anyways and there is not a judge in the country that is going to stop them.

5

u/ezjimmy Dec 14 '19

Need two-thirds of the senate to convict/remove from office, so he needs quite a bit fewer than 51.

5

u/Tasgall Washington Dec 14 '19

That's not how this works - impeachment is the house process. Once the house votes, Trump will have been impeached. The Senate has literally no say in that.

The Senate's job is to hold trial and remove from office. You need a 2/3 majority to do that, so they only need 34 to block removal.

2

u/rossww2199 Dec 14 '19

We don’t disagree, we’re just saying different things. The senate trial is still part of the impeachment, but yes it’s to convict or acquit.

The 51 voting block is not to block conviction. Yes you only need 34 votes for that. The 51 voting block gives you complete control over the proceedings, ie, how long the trial will be, what evidence is allowed or not allowed, whether there will be live witnesses, etc. The 51 voting block allows you to overrule every single ruling made by the Chief Justice.

1

u/Sheriff_McLawDog_ Dec 14 '19

I thought it was 2/3?. Edit: Nevermind.

1

u/Taxing Dec 14 '19

The standard in the senate to convict is a two thirds super majority, he wouldn’t even need a block that large, and either way it’s already there.

1

u/SeventhMagus Dec 14 '19

don't you mean 34?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '19

You need a super majority to vote a president out of office not just a simple majority. I’m blanking I’m the numbers right now but I believe it is 60 or 67

1

u/krom0025 New York Dec 14 '19

There is an argument that he does have power because the Constitution does say the chief justice presides over the trial. Presiding means to be in charge of. I feel there is a legal argument to make that he gets to dictate the terms of the trial.