I remit to the following language in the OP, highlighting mine:
That does seem to question if he can just put him on the CJ job on his say-so.
The answer to that is, as we have discussed, that every precedent says the move from AJ to CJ indeed would have to be confirmed by the Senate and would not take effect until it was.
That it may or may not be past the likes of the Barrsket of Deplorables to claim that if the text of the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it then the President’s word is what goes, seems to be a leitmotif of ready29003’s threads. But here’s the thing, with various of their hypotheticals, ISTM if the system let them stand, then that would mean the coup has been already under way and at least partly succeeded, or, more likely, that the system is “coming out” and openly admitting it never was what it publicly claimed to be.
We know that with Roberts it did not include the power to remember the oath from memory…
OTOH I’d be pretty sure that the MAGAts would indeed nitpick even how the new President held the Bible to denounce that he’s illegitimate and only DJT is the real President.
What happens if the decision is 6-3, the CJ writes the main opinion, and the other 5 in the majority combine in a concurring opinion? Other than the CJ looking like a fool, that is.
Did LBJ become president the moment Kennedy was declared dead or the moment he was sworn in?
Put it another way, could LBJ have issued orders to the military in the time between Kennedy dying and him being sworn in?
It seems to me the urgency they had in swearing him in says something. If he was insta-president at the moment of Kennedy’s death then they could have waited to do the swearing in as a formality at a later date with lots of pomp and circumstance so beloved by the beltway crowd.
The relevant text of the Constitution at the time, which has since been superseded by the 25th Amendment, states that “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President”.
I’m no big-city lawyer, but my reading is that LBJ became president the moment JFK died, but that taking the oath enabled him to actually exercise the presidential authority.
As i understand - if the decision is a plurality, if the court decides a certain way say, 6-3 but 2 of the 6 write a separate opinion pushing a different chain of logic- then the result is not as binding. If 4 justices agree “tattoos are free speech” (to pick an example out of thin air) and 2 say “not free speech, but if the tattoo cannot be seen, it cannot be held against the person” then there is no SCOTUS ruling that tattoos are free speech. Other cases can quote the decision as guidance but it’s not binding precedent. (Any lawyers here?)
Remember that FDR threatened to expand the court if it continued to block the new deal. The court backed down. There are plenty of levers for a president to push if he also has a compliant house and senate. When the house or senate won’t go along - well, that’s the 3-way balance of power.
Also, Roberts has already established that in an impeachment, the trial judge (CJ) is a very passive observer, not an active participant. Whether you agree or disagree, that’s precedent now for what it’s worth. Presumably a different CJ at another impeachment could decide Roberts was wrong and change the rule.
The rule is that “When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as
that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. . . .’” Marks v. United States (1977).
I’m not sure anyone actually knows what that means in practice. There’s a decent Congressional Research Service discussion of the issue here.
ETA:
Roberts was (very deliberately) following the precedent set by Rehnquist (“I did nothing in particular and I did it very well”). I’m not sure what role Chase played.