"John ROberts Refused to Preside Over Impeachment"

[Arcangl86]

So I have an honest question. I keep seeing these claims that CJ Roberts "refused" to presides over the impeachment trial and that being used as an argument to prove that it's unConstitutional. What is that being based off of? I haven't seen any statement from CJ Roberts or SCOTUS, and the Senate doesn't say anything about CJ being requested to preside. So where are people getting this from?

 

[trunks2k]

First I've ever heard of this. If I had to guess, it probably comes from a certain group/person that we aren't allowed to talk about, that has made a lot of pretty outlandish unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Hammster]

So I have an honest question. I keep seeing these claims that CJ Roberts "refused" to presides over the impeachment trial and that being used as an argument to prove that it's unConstitutional. What is that being based off of? I haven't seen any statement from CJ Roberts or SCOTUS, and the Senate doesn't say anything about CJ being requested to preside. So where are people getting this from?

From what I understand, he can only preside if it’s a trial for someone in office. Since Trump is no longer in office, Roberts has no official position, according to the Constitution.

 

[Paulos23]

From what I understand, he can only preside if it’s a trial for someone in office. Since Trump is no longer in office, Roberts has no official position, according to the Constitution.

I would add it is not a requirement for Roberts to preside. He could, but either he or the Senate doesn't want him to.

 

[Hammster]

I would add it is not a requirement for Roberts to preside. He could, but either he or the Senate doesn't want him to.

Who is required to preside?

 

[tz620q]

From what I understand, he can only preside if it’s a trial for someone in office. Since Trump is no longer in office, Roberts has no official position, according to the Constitution.

Actually the Chief Justice is required to preside, as can be found at the SCOTUSblog. Here is a page at the U.S. Senate web site detailing the rules of order. The CJ is considered an impartial judge to control the proceedings; otherwise, you will have someone who might have an axe to grind controlling the impeachment trial. The reason the CJ is not presiding goes beyond he doesn't want to, which is what Schumer stated. Since Trump is no longer president, he is a private citizen. The Senate has no power to try a private citizen. That power resides in the courts. For Roberts to preside would be his relinquishing the true power of the court system to the Senate.

 

[Paulos23]

Who is required to preside?

If it is a trial for someone not in office, I think it is up to the Senate to determine that. So they could ask Roberts to preside. But they are going with the oldest member in the Senate on the Democratic side.

I would rather they went with a justice to show an illusion of fairness. It is clear how most of the Senate will vote.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's go to the source:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Notwithstanding any arguments about whether the trial is moot because it is happening after Trump left office...

The key phrase is "when the president of the US is tried the Chief Justice shall preside". Why, because the regular presiding officer of the US Senate (the President of the Senate) is the VP of the US. If a President was convicted and removed the VP would be come President. It is not a good look for the presiding officer at a trial to benefit from the outcome by replacing the convicted. (It should also be noted that when this was written, the VP was the second place finisher in the EC with each elector casting two votes for president. Dumb, I know, but that's the way it was.)

If the trial had begun immediately after impeachment (let's say that weekend) the CJ Roberts would had not choice to preside. It's my understanding from reports that CJ Roberts hated presiding at the first trial and did not want to. It seems that Senate (probably Mitch, who was then in charge) reached out to the CJ and didn't want to. (There is a not unreasonable argument that considering the [former] position of the defendant that the CJ should preside even though not required as if to say all presidents are tried by the CJ, even if already gone.)

 

[BobRyan]

First I've ever heard of this. If I had to guess, it probably comes from a certain group/person that we aren't allowed to talk about, that has made a lot of pretty outlandish unsubstantiated claims.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer??

Speaking to MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) revealed that Roberts “did not want” to take part in the trial.

“The Constitution says the chief justice presides for a sitting president,” the top-ranking senator said. “So it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who is no longer sitting (no longer in office), Trump, and he doesn’t want to do it.”

https://nypost.com/2021/01/27/john-...-for-trump-impeachment-trial-sparks-concerns/

Hmm John Roberts does not want to "impeach a private citizen"? or is it that technically it is not even an impeachment to start with if it is in regard to a private citizen?

========================

In a statement, the Vermont lawmaker explained that he would oversee the trial instead of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts because Trump is no longer president.

Following Tuesday’s swearing-in, more than 45 GOP lawmakers voted to toss Trump’s impeachment trial as unconstitutional, all but assuring that the impeachment article charging the former president with inciting the Jan. 6 US Capitol siege, will be dead on arrival.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/26/sen-patrick-leahy-returns-home-from-brief-hospital-stay/

So then a "show trial" it is.. I suppose for emotional effect. But can that emotional effect - "backfire"??

(Technically speaking - Santa Anna Mexican dictator and general Antonio López de Santa Anna won the Battle of the Alamo -- not the Texans fighting for independence. But how did that pan out in the long run for Mexico and America?)

=================

"thems the rules"

The Facts
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."


The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.

Fact Check: Did Chief Justice Roberts Refuse to Preside Over Trump's Impeachment Trial?

Possibly Roberts was persuaded by "the rules"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hmm John Roberts does not want to "impeach a private citizen"? or is it that technically it is not even an impeachment to start with if it is in regard to a private citizen?

John Roberts has *no* power to impeach anyone. His *only* role in this process is to *preside* in the trials of a president (and presumably vice president for reasons that are obvious from my previous post). He can neither impeach (that's already been done) nor convict (that is the purview of the senate), only preside. (you know, like a judge). [Even as the presiding officer of the court he has much more limited powers than a criminal court judge. The Senate has the full authority over the length of the trial, witnesses, etc., despite being the jury.]

Trump was impeached on Jan 13, he was still president for 6 days and some hours afterward.