Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:34 PM Jan 2021

I am concerned about CJ Roberts not presiding over the impeachment trial.

I have read several stories about CJ Roberts not presiding over the upcoming impeachment trial. I have seen references to CJ Roberts not wanting the job. What I cannot find is whether CJ Roberts affirmatively declined to preside. According to CNN, both CJ Roberts and Senate pro temp Leahy are declining to answer the question.

I understand the argument that since Trump is not the current president, the constitutional requirement that the CJ preside over impeachment trials does not apply. I am uncertain of that argument. Moreover, it undermines the argument in response to the Trumpster's argument that an impeachment of a former President is somehow improper that the Senate trial is a continuation of an impeachment process that began in the House while Trump was still President

I think that CJ Roberts should recuse from the impeachment trial because it seems likely that, at some point or other, Trump will challenge the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. However, I hope CJ Roberts was invited to preside and affirmatively declined.

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I am concerned about CJ Roberts not presiding over the impeachment trial. (Original Post) TomSlick Jan 2021 OP
Precedent. No Excutive Official impeached after leaving office has had a Chief Justice officiate. hlthe2b Jan 2021 #1
Except in three previous impeachments, no Chief Justice presided over ANY impeachment trial StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #4
I just said that. hlthe2b Jan 2021 #6
No, that's NOT what you said StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #9
The two are mutually exclusive. If you only think through. hlthe2b Jan 2021 #14
So, I didn't repeat what you said, after all StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #25
Do you expectdump to be subpoenad to testify? SheltieLover Jan 2021 #7
Yes. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #11
Oh, Karma... SheltieLover Jan 2021 #15
Can they lock him up for refusing? SheltieLover Jan 2021 #16
No. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #19
Goddammit! SheltieLover Jan 2021 #23
That's not the reason StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #26
Ty! SheltieLover Jan 2021 #27
No. Essentially, he's a coward. Laelth Jan 2021 #21
Let's hope his need for attention takes over SheltieLover Jan 2021 #24
Chief Justice only presides over the impeachment trial of the president EarlG Jan 2021 #2
I understand the argument. The problem is there is no precedent - either way. TomSlick Jan 2021 #10
Schumer just said the Senate asked Roberts to preside and he declined. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #28
The Chief Justice is required to preside if it's the president being tried StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #31
Fair enough EarlG Jan 2021 #36
I have no concerns. It is 100% the correct decision. I hope the Senate didn't ask him. servermsh Jan 2021 #3
See post 10 above. TomSlick Jan 2021 #13
The Chief Justice is required to preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #33
I'm not- Leahy is less likely to put up with GOP shenanigans. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2021 #5
Under the Senate rules the Chief Justice presides only over trials of presidents. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2021 #8
See post 10 above. TomSlick Jan 2021 #12
"When the President of the United States is *tried* the Chief Justice shall preside...." The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2021 #18
That's a good point. TomSlick Jan 2021 #20
Federalist Papers 65 and 66 (both by Hamilton) deal with impeachment. TomSlick Jan 2021 #34
What matters is what the Constitution says, not what Hamilton was thinking. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2021 #35
Sure. But SCOTUS often looks to the Federalist Papers in parsing the Constitution. TomSlick Jan 2021 #37
But if he was impeached while President... Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2021 #22
That's not what the constitution says. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2021 #29
"I am uncertain of that argument." - I'm pretty certain Trump isn't President. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2021 #17
Schumer just told Rachel Maddow that Roberts did not want to preside. nt spooky3 Jan 2021 #30
I saw that and it helps. TomSlick Jan 2021 #32

hlthe2b

(105,866 posts)
1. Precedent. No Excutive Official impeached after leaving office has had a Chief Justice officiate.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:38 PM
Jan 2021

Only a Senator--typically the Senate President Pro Tempore, as will be the case with SPPT Leahy.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
4. Except in three previous impeachments, no Chief Justice presided over ANY impeachment trial
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:42 PM
Jan 2021

Chief Justices preside only when a president is being tried for impeachment. That has happened only three times in history.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
9. No, that's NOT what you said
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:53 PM
Jan 2021

You said: "No Excutive Official impeached after leaving officehas had a Chief Justice officiate." Your comment was limited the few cases in which someone was impeached after they left office.

I responded by pointing out that, except for three presidents, no executive official at all (whether impeached before or after leaving office) has had a Chief Justice officiate.

We didn't say the same thing.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
11. Yes.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:55 PM
Jan 2021

He'll probably refuse, though.

But he's also narcissistic enough to think he can match wits with the Democrats and not incriminate himself, so who knows?

SheltieLover

(59,234 posts)
23. Goddammit!
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:12 PM
Jan 2021

Because he once played "daddy" to country?

Guessing if it were anyone else, it would be a different story.

Ty!

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
26. That's not the reason
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:17 PM
Jan 2021

He can't be forced to be a witness against himself and any testimony he gives in the Senate trial could incriminate him. He can invoke the Fifth Amendment.

SheltieLover

(59,234 posts)
27. Ty!
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:20 PM
Jan 2021

Bp just dropped!

Forcing him to take 5th would be very painful for voldermort!

Does he have to show up go take 5th? Fingers crossed!

Ty!!!

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
21. No. Essentially, he's a coward.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:12 PM
Jan 2021

He doesn’t want to testify, and he won’t testify if he can possibly avoid it.

-Laelth

EarlG

(22,453 posts)
2. Chief Justice only presides over the impeachment trial of the president
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:39 PM
Jan 2021

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump is no longer president, ergo CJ does not preside.

It’s completely normal.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215006185

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
10. I understand the argument. The problem is there is no precedent - either way.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:54 PM
Jan 2021

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides: "When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside...." When Trump was impeached (by the House), he was the President. The Senate trial is a continuation of that process.

If CJ Roberts was not offered the job, it bolsters arguments that the Senate trial is improper.

I see no reason that the CJ should not be offered the opportunity to preside. If he declines (as I think he should), then the Senate should proceed with the pro temp in the chair.

As a believer in the belt-and-suspender practice of law, I would prefer to avoid this issue by inviting CJ Roberts the opportunity to preside and hope he declines.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
31. The Chief Justice is required to preside if it's the president being tried
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:22 PM
Jan 2021

But he is not prohibited from presiding over any other impeachment trial, including that of a former president.

servermsh

(1,373 posts)
3. I have no concerns. It is 100% the correct decision. I hope the Senate didn't ask him.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:41 PM
Jan 2021

Why should they? The trial is of a former Federal official, not the President. It couldn't be more clear.

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
13. See post 10 above.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:57 PM
Jan 2021

I have learned through the years that when someone tells me the law is clear, it probably isn't.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
33. The Chief Justice is required to preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:25 PM
Jan 2021

But he is not prohibited from presiding over the trial of anyone else. If he is asked and he agrees, there is no reason he couldn't preside over the impeachment trial of a former president.

In this instance, according to Chuck Schumer, Roberts was asked to preside and declined.

All good.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,001 posts)
8. Under the Senate rules the Chief Justice presides only over trials of presidents.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 09:46 PM
Jan 2021

Trump is not the president. If the trial is of anyone other than the president, the presiding officer of the senate does it, and this will be the president pro tem of the senate. This is just the normal rule and it has nothing to do with whether the trial will go to the Supreme Court, which it probably won't anyhow because the Constitution gives it no role in impeachments. Other officials have been convicted in impeachment trials after leaving office without challenge (look up William Belknap), so there is not likely to be any question about the constitutionality of that process. Even the Federalist Society thinks it's OK.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,001 posts)
18. "When the President of the United States is *tried* the Chief Justice shall preside...."
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:05 PM
Jan 2021

It doesn't matter that the impeachment by the House occurred while Trump was president. He is not the president now, and therefore he will not be the president when he is tried. Therefore someone other than the Chief Justice will be the presiding officer. The rule was created only to preclude the possibility of a vice president (who could be the presiding officer) presiding over their own trial, or over a trial that might result in him becoming president if the impeached president is convicted. If a non-president is being tried there's no possibility of that conflict of interest and therefore no need for the CJ to be the presiding officer.

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
20. That's a good point.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:12 PM
Jan 2021

The VP should not preside in a Senate trial that could result in him/her becoming President.

I need to search the Federalist Papers to see if there is any reference to why the CJ presides in cases against the President.

At a minimum, you have made me feel some better about things.

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
34. Federalist Papers 65 and 66 (both by Hamilton) deal with impeachment.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:38 PM
Jan 2021

In FP 65, Hamilton argues having the CJ preside as being a good combination of the legislative and judicial branches in cases of impeachment. There is no reference to the CJ presiding to avoid having the VP preside over a proceeding from which they might benefit.

I think you make a good point. The VP ought not preside in a case in which a sitting President might be removed. However, based on FP 65 and 66, it is not clear that avoiding that problem is the reason for having the CJ preside.

Sen. Schumer just said on Rachel that CJ Roberts did not want the job. I will assume his statement is based on communications from the CJ. In which case, my concerns are resolved. It has been an interesting academic discussion but it is apparently moot.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,001 posts)
35. What matters is what the Constitution says, not what Hamilton was thinking.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:45 PM
Jan 2021

The Constitution and the Senate rules are very clear. Since the conflict of interest inherent in having the VP (the usual presiding officer) manage a trial of himself, or of the president (where the VP would become president if the president being tried is convicted), does not exist where the person on trial is the ex-president, the CJ is not needed. It might have been that they floated the idea to him only so as to avoid accusations of bias. But there's no question that the Constitution and the Senate rules provide that the CJ is the presiding officer where the trial is of a sitting president or vice president. The CJ has been the presiding officer only in three previous impeachment trials, and those were of sitting presidents - Andrew Johnson, Clinton and Trump #1.

TomSlick

(11,731 posts)
37. Sure. But SCOTUS often looks to the Federalist Papers in parsing the Constitution.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 11:03 PM
Jan 2021

I was simply reporting back that the Federalist Papers were of help in this question, so we agree that the language of the Constitution controls. The Senate Rules would be interesting but only to the point they do not conflict with the Constitution.

The prior impeachments are of little precedential value in considering a first-ever Senate impeachment proceeding for a former President.

The Constitution does not say the CJ presides over the trial of a sitting President - it only says the CJ presides over the trial of "the" President. Of course, there is only one "the" President but, again, Trump was "the" President when the House impeached.

If, as I hope, the Senate not only convicts but bars Trump from holding office in the future, we may expect Trump to challenge that determination. I have little confidence how the current SCOTUS would rule.

Fortunately, with Schumer's assurance the CJ has declined to serve, it' a moot point.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,481 posts)
22. But if he was impeached while President...
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:12 PM
Jan 2021

...and the trial took place only after he left
office, should the Chief Justice still preside since the impeachment charges were levied at a time when he was still President?

Since a impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and the due process concerns aren’t as much of an issue, all of this is probably just a formality.

Still I understand the concerns of the OP—having the Chief Justice preside if he so wishes would buffer against charges of partisanship. Which itself is a bit of an illusion but still.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,001 posts)
29. That's not what the constitution says.
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 10:21 PM
Jan 2021

Sen. Schumer just now explained this situation on Rachel Maddow's show. I assume he knows whereof he speaks.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I am concerned about CJ R...