Questions about the Senate trial

[Lakhota]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at

his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't

know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

Good question. I'm no expert, but I've heard that it will partly depend on how "involved" and "forceful" Justice Roberts wishes to be. In other words - he apparently has "flexibility". We are all in the dark - because there has never been such a serious/grave impeachment trial in U.S. history. I seriously doubt that Justice Roberts would allow McConnell to run a sham/rigged trial. Justice Roberts also cares about his legacy - and he knows this will be a "major" part of it - if not the most "major". No one benefits from an unfair trial. No one! I find the following link very informative.

How John Roberts might oversee a Senate impeachment trial - CNNPolitics

 

[White 6]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

I found this online: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

"The chief justice is in the chair. And senators are not allowed to speak. So, that's the way it will be handled in the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the process earlier this month.

And further in the article refering to the role of the Chief Justice:
He would be tasked with moderating the impeachment proceedings, setting the pace, authorizing senators to speak or stop speaking, and would decide on motions and admissibility of evidence. During questioning of any witnesses, the chief justice is the conduit for senators to submit their queries in writing, according to Senate rules.

"Experts in Senate procedure will no doubt offer him advice," said Richards, "but the calls he makes are subject to reversal by the other 50 people in the room. He can make a ruling and 50 other people can overrule him."

Sounds like a sticky position to be in.

 

[Lakhota]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

I found this online: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

"The chief justice is in the chair. And senators are not allowed to speak. So, that's the way it will be handled in the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the process earlier this month.

And further in the article refering to the role of the Chief Justice:
He would be tasked with moderating the impeachment proceedings, setting the pace, authorizing senators to speak or stop speaking, and would decide on motions and admissibility of evidence. During questioning of any witnesses, the chief justice is the conduit for senators to submit their queries in writing, according to Senate rules.

"Experts in Senate procedure will no doubt offer him advice," said Richards, "but the calls he makes are subject to reversal by the other 50 people in the room. He can make a ruling and 50 other people can overrule him."

Sounds like a sticky position to be in.

Good information. We'll see if Justice Roberts has any balls.

 

[White 6]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

I found this online: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

"The chief justice is in the chair. And senators are not allowed to speak. So, that's the way it will be handled in the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the process earlier this month.

And further in the article refering to the role of the Chief Justice:
He would be tasked with moderating the impeachment proceedings, setting the pace, authorizing senators to speak or stop speaking, and would decide on motions and admissibility of evidence. During questioning of any witnesses, the chief justice is the conduit for senators to submit their queries in writing, according to Senate rules.

"Experts in Senate procedure will no doubt offer him advice," said Richards, "but the calls he makes are subject to reversal by the other 50 people in the room. He can make a ruling and 50 other people can overrule him."

Sounds like a sticky position to be in.

Good information. We'll see if Justice Roberts has any balls.

I read somewhere else that Rehnquist did actually make some rulings in the Clinton impeachment that were not particularly accepted enthusiastically by the Republicans in the Senate, but were not overruled by the Senate, while the same article pointed out the the Cheif justice during Andrew Johnson trial made judgments that were intermediately overruled. Can't find where I read it, so it could be bullshit. It is hard to find answers to questions about the Cieif Justice role, because this crap does not come up often. Thank God.

 

[Lakhota]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

I found this online: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

"The chief justice is in the chair. And senators are not allowed to speak. So, that's the way it will be handled in the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the process earlier this month.

And further in the article refering to the role of the Chief Justice:
He would be tasked with moderating the impeachment proceedings, setting the pace, authorizing senators to speak or stop speaking, and would decide on motions and admissibility of evidence. During questioning of any witnesses, the chief justice is the conduit for senators to submit their queries in writing, according to Senate rules.

"Experts in Senate procedure will no doubt offer him advice," said Richards, "but the calls he makes are subject to reversal by the other 50 people in the room. He can make a ruling and 50 other people can overrule him."

Sounds like a sticky position to be in.

Good information. We'll see if Justice Roberts has any balls.

I read somewhere else that Rehnquist did actually make some rulings in the Clinton impeachment that were not particularly accepted enthusiastically by the Republicans in the Senate, but were not overruled by the Senate, while the same article pointed out the the Cheif justice during Andrew Johnson trial made judgments that were intermediately overruled. Can't find where I read it, so it could be bullshit. It is hard to find answers to questions about the Cieif Justice role, because this crap does not come up often. Thank God.

Interesting information. If Chief Justice Roberts cherishes and respects the Constitution like I think he does, I expect that he will be assertive and fair. However, he could also be Chief Justice Milquetoast (timid, meek, and unassertive). It will be a great learning experience for all of us.

 

[kyzr]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

I found this online: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

"The chief justice is in the chair. And senators are not allowed to speak. So, that's the way it will be handled in the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the process earlier this month.

And further in the article refering to the role of the Chief Justice:
He would be tasked with moderating the impeachment proceedings, setting the pace, authorizing senators to speak or stop speaking, and would decide on motions and admissibility of evidence. During questioning of any witnesses, the chief justice is the conduit for senators to submit their queries in writing, according to Senate rules.

"Experts in Senate procedure will no doubt offer him advice," said Richards, "but the calls he makes are subject to reversal by the other 50 people in the room. He can make a ruling and 50 other people can overrule him."

Sounds like a sticky position to be in.

Good information. We'll see if Justice Roberts has any balls.

I read somewhere else that Rehnquist did actually make some rulings in the Clinton impeachment that were not particularly accepted enthusiastically by the Republicans in the Senate, but were not overruled by the Senate, while the same article pointed out the the Cheif justice during Andrew Johnson trial made judgments that were intermediately overruled. Can't find where I read it, so it could be bullshit. It is hard to find answers to questions about the Cieif Justice role, because this crap does not come up often. Thank God.

Interesting information. If Chief Justice Roberts cherishes and respects the Constitution like I think he does, I expect that he will be assertive and fair. However, he could also be Chief Justice Milquetoast (timid, meek, and unassertive). It will be a great learning experience for all of us.

I'm assuming that since no one wants a circus, that the "trial" will go something like:
1. The House managers present their case w/o witnesses, any 2nd hand evidence is thrown out
2. The Trump defense team presents their defense w/o witnesses
3. The motion to dismiss all Articles passes
4. The trial is over and Trump is acquitted, no muss, no fuss, no circus.

Any deviations from the above is defeated by a senate vote.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is the Vice-President's roll in the Senate? ... Ah, you see the problem if it's the VP on trial, or the Prez ... if a justice has been impeachment and sent for trial, the VP presides, as he normally does ...

"What if" we annex the UK and add those 8 new Senate seats ... we could have a tie vote, 72-36 ... does the chief justice cast the deciding vote? ... that would be the VP's job normally ...

I say yes, the chief justice isn't there as a judge, he's there to do the VP's job ... fair's fair ...

 

[kyzr]

What is the Vice-President's roll in the Senate? ... Ah, you see the problem if it's the VP on trial, or the Prez ... if a justice has been impeachment and sent for trial, the VP presides, as he normally does ...

"What if" we annex the UK and add those 8 new Senate seats ... we could have a tie vote, 72-36 ... does the chief justice cast the deciding vote? ... that would be the VP's job normally ...

I say yes, the chief justice isn't there as a judge, he's there to do the VP's job ... fair's fair ...

1. The VP only votes to break ties.
2. We are not annexing anyone, so your question is moot.
3. The Chief Justice has no vote, just the 100 senators and the VP
4. You're wrong, the VP job is not transferable

 

[ReinyDays]

4. You're wrong, the VP job is not transferable

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... the VP presides over his own trial ... that's funny ... now go read the Constitution again ...

My local community is semi-actively campaigning for our own statehood ... that would add two senators ... it's possible, just not realistic, but hardly moot ... that evil Salem/Sacramento axis of evil won't allow it, the bastards ...

 

[kyzr]

4. You're wrong, the VP job is not transferable

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... the VP presides over his own trial ... that's funny ... now go read the Constitution again ...

My local community is semi-actively campaigning for our own statehood ... that would add two senators ... it's possible, just not realistic, but hardly moot ... that evil Salem/Sacramento axis of evil won't allow it, the bastards ...

DUH...the VP wasn't impeached, VPs don't do anything except break ties in the senate. There never was a VP impeached and never will be.

Your community must be as dumb as you are. Read the Constitution and see how states are added. There won't be anymore states added, its not just Sacramento that's stopping you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Article IV, Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

{emphasis mine}

Yeah, tax-payers short changed my high school education as well ... but at least I was taught to read with comprehension ...

Oregon legislature, California legislature and the US Cingress can agree to form a State with portions of these two states ... 2 new Senate seats and our House seats all come at California's expense ... we'd make Redding the state capital so no one will run for the legislature ... solid Republican ...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

4. You're wrong, the VP job is not transferable

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... the VP presides over his own trial ... that's funny ... now go read the Constitution again ...

My local community is semi-actively campaigning for our own statehood ... that would add two senators ... it's possible, just not realistic, but hardly moot ... that evil Salem/Sacramento axis of evil won't allow it, the bastards ...

The Vice President has no role in an impeachment.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Vice President has no role in an impeachment.

Article I, Section 3: " ... The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. ..."

Yeesh ...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Vice President has no role in an impeachment.

Article I, Section 3: " ... The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. ..."

Yeesh ...

On a 2/3rds vote there can be no tie dumb ass.