Obviously he’s sure. Doesn’t mean he’s correct, but he’s certain, either way.
Of course your post is misdirected, because I was addressing Saint Cad who was just confidently assuring us that the trial is definitely not going to be partisan and there’s no evidence to the contrary. You guys should get together and get your story straight.
It’s frankly blah blah blah blah blah know this, but the impeachment was completed earlier this week.
The topic of this thread is the trial, not the impeachment. The trial requires all jurors(Senators) to swear an oath of impartiality.
He only won’t have to make rulings if there are no disputes presented to him. Let’s say that the Senate refuses the Dem requests to call John Bolton. One of the House Managers could rise and say, “Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand.” There would be cries of “Objection!” as it would be in violation of the rules presented by the Senate. The House Manager could then say “Mr. Chief Justice, the Senate has denied us the right to present a complete case and the rule is an unconstitutional interference with the House’s ability to prosecute these articles of impeachment.”
CJ Roberts will have to rule one way or the other. And either way he rules, the Senate may overrule him with 51 votes.
I agree. The Chief Justice does not make the rules in an impeachment trial. His role is simply to enforce the rules the Senate has made. And the Senate is free to change those rules at any point by a majority vote - even after the Chief Justice has made a ruling.
So this could happen:
House Manager: “Mr. Chief Justice, the House calls John Bolton to the witness stand.”
Defense: “Objection.”
Chief Justice Roberts: “Objection overruled. Senate rules say the House Manager can call witnesses.”
Fifty-one Senators: “We don’t like that rule. We’re changing it.”
Chief Justice Roberts: “Then objection sustained. Senate rules say the House Manager cannot call witnesses.”
No, it hasn’t.
Cite:
That is certain an opinion.
Two things stood out to me in the Senate rules that the OP linked to.
(A), They appear to envision a rather limited role for the Chief Justice. Paragraph VII (at the bottom of p.224) says that he “may rule on all questions of evidence. . . .” Not “shall,” but “may.” There’s a world of difference between the two. “Shall” is mandatory, but “may” is discretionary.
(B), It is clear that the Chief Justice does not have any sort of jurisdiction over the Senate. In the same paragraph, we see two separate individuals functioning: the “Presiding Officer on the trial” (i.e., the Chief Justice); and the “Presiding Officer of the Senate.” This reading is reinforced by paragraph XI, wherein the Presiding Officer of the Senate is given the role of leader.
Yes, from the constitutional scholar called as a witness by the Democrats themselves during the impeachment inquiry. :dubious:
The rules are supposed to be worked out and agreed upon before the trial begins.
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
I know they’re supposed to be. But is there any binding rule that prohibits changes during the trial? Or is it just a voluntary agreement not to make any changes?
It’s funny you think Republicans still give a damn about “supposed to”.
I’m sure someone will tell me why this is a stupid idea.
But why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi say something along the lines of this:
"Senator McConnell has made it abundantly clear through his own words that he has no intention whatsoever of upholding the oath he will take prior to an impeachment trial in the Senate.
"That oath reads ‘I, [name], solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’
“Unless and until Senator McConnell repudiates his earlier statements stating that he has no intention of being impartial in these proceedings and promises he will uphold his oath, the House will NOT forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.”
In other words, hold this asshole’s feet to the fire and shine the spotlight on him. He needs to made to squirm a little for saying something so egregious.
I grant that even if he backtracked on the statement, his behavior probably wouldn’t be any different. But someone ought to make the point that laws, and oaths, mean something.
I don’t see the downside to the Democrats doing this. Obviously, the Repubs, as well as Trump, want to see this all disposed of as quickly as possible. Make 'em wait, and make it clear what is holding things up.
What can I say? Gullibility Springs Eternal.
The impeachment trial dies on the vine, Trump and the Republicans declare it a “win”.
There is the obvious downside.
McConnell can do just about whatever he wants because there’s nothing to stop him. Roberts might say something, but most likely he’d rather just let McConnell do it, and not get too involved himself. Pelosi’s goal isn’t to try to force Republicans in the Senate, through a trial, to somehow admit that Trump committed egregious acts. Her goal is to accentuate that they are effectively abetting Trump–and to shine a public light on that.
The results of the trial–or even whether they have one or not–are not the real issue here; they’re going to declare it a “win” no matter how it happens. The point is to call public attention to what the Republicans are doing. The strategy is to make this outweigh the inevitable claims of a “win,” and spur anti-Republican turn out in the election. Of course no one knows how well this will work, but it’s probably her best course of action.
If the avalanche of crap that has been shoveled at the public by Trump and the Republicans to date hasn’t attracted the public’s attention, then what makes you think a failed impeachment attempt(and it IS a failure if the trial falls through because Trump doesn’t give a flying fuck about honor and/or integrity) will do the job?
Exactly. Further, McConnell doesn’t have to do anything wrt changing the ‘rules’…they could go by exactly the same rules as was used in Clinton’s senate trial and the result would be the same…Trump is going to get off. There is no ‘fair’ trial that would change this result.
McConnell would be stupid to not simply use the same rules as were used for Clinton, including limited numbers of witnesses cross examined privately. Assuming there isn’t something we haven’t heard yet wrt Trump, he’s not going to be hammered by the Senate, and it will be a completely partisan across the board vote, with, perhaps, one or two people voting the other way for political reasons. Just like what happened in the House.
The REAL question is, will it be like all the other times of impeachment where the party of the president being impeached loses in the next general election. I think that this will hold true, and Trump will simply be voted out.