The way it has been characterized is that the justice functions more like a game umpire. He enforces the established rules until the senators vote to change the rules and then he enforces the new rules. So he does not have much authority the way a judge would in his own courtroom.
Yeah, for the most part, Roberts is just going to be recognizing who speaks next. All procedural questions are ultimately decided by a majority vote.
He has as much say as a voting majority of Senators allow him, ie total.
What’s the phrase? “Lump on a log”? The less Roberts says and does, the better for him. Don’t expect him to deny many GOP motions, objections, and votes - unless he’s secretly a law-abiding non-partisan. 
The game is already rigged. What could change that?
No. The judge of the trial is the Senate. The Chief Justice has the option to make some preliminary decisions, subject to overrule by the Senate, but in most cases AFAIK he’s allowed to just defer directly to the Senate and call a vote without expressing an opinion either way. William Rehnquist was practically invisible in 1999 and I wouldn’t expect John Roberts to treat the job any differently.
Nevertheless, the media is going to call the senators “jurors” incessantly. One of William Rehnquist’s few interventions in 1999 was to tell the House managers to knock it off when they kept calling the Senate a “jury.”
Swing and a miss! Jim is 0-for-1!
“rule against campaigning”! Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
Of course she did, do you think that’s the ONE thing she didn’t think about?
I provided a link to a Buzzfeed article above which talks about the VERY restrictive Senate rules for Senators during an impeachment trual. Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters should be VERY upset that their candidates have to be physically present 6 days a week most of the day. I think it restricts them from holding campaign events 6 days a week. While Biden can hit a different state every day with a campaign event leading up to Iowa. They rigged it against Bernie in 2016, and they are doing it again. Enjoy the protest votes / stay homers on Election Day 2020 from upset Sanders, Warren, and Klo-bee supporters. Heck, I think they should run independent third party now.
Fortunately, most Sanders/Warren/Klobuchar supporters are in favor of impeachment and happy to have their candidates fighting to hold the President accountable, and laugh off this sort of feeble attempt at trying to convince these candidates to help Trump by running 3rd party.
But I’m sure Trump is pleased that you’re so eager to do his work for him.
Of course, there are a lot of Senators running their own re-election campaigns this year who will not only have to set time aside for the trial but who will be in the spotlight for everything they do and say during it. These include: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Ben Sasse, and Jim Inhofe; in fact, 23 seats currently held by Republicans are up for grabs as opposed to 12 held by Democrats. Who do you think is more likely to be damaged by a hiatus in campaigning?
So why assume this has anything to do with Sanders, Warren and Klobucher unless you are committed to the whole “let’s you and him fight” narrative?
This is fucking bonkers.
Yes. She has been very explicit about that. The key vulnerable GOP Senators who will have to decide between joining the sham toady parade or standing up to leadership Trump inclusive, either one of which costs them something and more the more clear it is that GOP Senate leadership has prejudged the outcome and is preventing truth from coming out.
So one person says I am bonkers, another says I am absolutely correct, all in the same morning.
Because DSeid is making a completely different point than you are. He’s not agreeing with you. How can you not see that?
He has conceded Pelosi was trying to hurt the primary chances of senators by withholding impeachment articles. That includes Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar. Therefore supporters of all affected senators have reason to be upset, including Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar supporters.
That’s not remotely what DSeid said. The straws you are grasping at are imaginary.
He quoted my question and answered Yes. How is that ambiguous?
DSeid talked about, very explicitly, GOP senators. So you’re playing some game or are dyslexic.
Let us make this very clear. The idea that Pelosi is making tactical decision with the D presidential primary in mind, aiming to handicap the D senator candidates is bonkers.
She IS making a tactical decision to impact senators, a few very specific ones: the several R senators in vulnerable races. Flipping the Senate is the very ambitious goal that she is trying to optimize the odds of.
Correct that there is nothing ambiguous in what I wrote so your misunderstanding of it is very odd.
Ok, so you two are saying the damage to the campaigns of Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar is colateral damage, and no one should care.
Rabbis Weiss, Friedman, and Bloom are discussing an intricate matter of scripture. Weiss and Bloom are taking one side, Friedman is steadfastly holding to the other. The argument goes on for hours. Finally, a booming voice from the heavens comes and says “Rabbi Friedman is right!”
After a long pause Rabbi Weiss says “So, now we’re tied at 2 each.”
You’re wrong, and your whole premise is ludicrous.