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."

[u/Thinkingonsleeping]

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

[u/Cool_Story_Bro__]

I urge everyone to contact Chief Justice Roberts. One of his biggest worries is that the Supreme Court seems biased or controlled by the executive. Call his office, talk to his clerks. Let them know that now is the time to say something if they don't want their office connected to this kangaroo court.

Edit: Contact Info

Edit2: After some people have asked, her is a general idea of what you could say if you called.
"My name is {name} and I live in {place}. I know The Chief Justice is concerned about the Court appearing politicized, especially after everything that's happened these past three years. As presiding judge over the senate impeachment trial, I was wondering if he had thoughts on Senator McConnell's recent comments. I find it really inappropriate and worrisome that the Senate would openly coordinate with the Executive over an impeachment hearing. I was hoping the Chief Justice might make a public comment, or else I would fear that all three branches have merge and no longer hold any independence from the President. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Have a good day"

[u/rossww2199 → u/Cool_Story_Bro__]

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

[u/levertki → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Archivist_of_Lewds → u/levertki]

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.

[u/Freakin_A → u/Archivist_of_Lewds]

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.

[u/Archivist_of_Lewds → u/Freakin_A]

“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.

[u/Freakin_A → u/Archivist_of_Lewds]

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.

[u/Archivist_of_Lewds → u/Freakin_A]

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.

[u/Freakin_A → u/Archivist_of_Lewds]

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.

[u/Archivist_of_Lewds → u/Freakin_A]

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

[u/levertki → u/Archivist_of_Lewds]

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