Justice Roberts says what?

[Care4all]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

From your linked article's original source, Politico...because this trial is not of a sitting president, but ex president, he does not have to be the one presiding over the impeachment according to the Constitution.... it can be someone like the President of the Senate, VP Harris, or longest Served Senator, Leahy.....

POLITICO Playbook: The Washington Trump leaves behind

And John Roberts tries to wriggle out of the Senate impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

JOHN ROBERTS WANTS OUT OF JURY DUTY: Multiple Republican and Democratic sources close to the impeachment trial negotiations tell us that Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS is looking to avoid presiding over impeachment proceedings.

We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “He wants no further part of this,” one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment when our Josh Gerstein reached out.

The Constitution delegates the chief justice to oversee impeachments of presidents, but this time around Trump will be an ex-president. That’s why lawmakers and aides were talking through the weekend about two other figures who historically have presided over lower-level impeachments: the vice president and the longest-serving member of the chamber. But would KAMALA HARRIS really want to do this in her first week on the job? If not, Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-Vt.) could be the guy.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans [sic] are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems [sic] don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Write yourself up AGAIN, troll.

You have no argument. Just divisive bullshit.

Divisive as in what your tribe is doing with going forward with a trial with a private citizen? That kind of divisive?
It's going to end up in the SC, and Robert's recognizes that.

 

[Meister]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

From your linked article's original source, Politico...because this trial is not of a sitting president, but ex president, he does not have to be the one presiding over the impeachment according to the Constitution.... it can be someone like the President of the Senate, VP Harris, or longest Served Senator, Leahy.....

POLITICO Playbook: The Washington Trump leaves behind

And John Roberts tries to wriggle out of the Senate impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

JOHN ROBERTS WANTS OUT OF JURY DUTY: Multiple Republican and Democratic sources close to the impeachment trial negotiations tell us that Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS is looking to avoid presiding over impeachment proceedings.

We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “He wants no further part of this,” one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment when our Josh Gerstein reached out.

The Constitution delegates the chief justice to oversee impeachments of presidents, but this time around Trump will be an ex-president. That’s why lawmakers and aides were talking through the weekend about two other figures who historically have presided over lower-level impeachments: the vice president and the longest-serving member of the chamber. But would KAMALA HARRIS really want to do this in her first week on the job? If not, Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-Vt.) could be the guy.

Well, those two would certainly be non bias, Care. Not sure that scenario would fly.

 

[White 6]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Not a vendetta, just something that has to be done. I do not presume you approve the attack on the Capital Building. I also presume you are aware he invited them there for the "Stop The Steal" rally that morning and saw his appeal to the crowd sending to the Capital along with hearing his lawyer and his son's word on his stage. President's do not get to pull that kind of stuff, especially trying to overthrow an election. It must be answered by the adults of both houses in one way or another, lest we see repeat, possibly every 4 years. I understand you to be in trump's corner, but at some level you know this to be true and that he brought it on himself and the rest of the country.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans [sic] are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems [sic] don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Write yourself up AGAIN, troll.

You have no argument. Just divisive bullshit.

Divisive as in what your tribe is doing with going forward with a trial with a private citizen? That kind of divisive?
It's going to end up in the SC, and Robert's recognizes that.

Strike three, troll.

YOU have no argument. All YOU do is fling turds and strawmen.

SHOW ME where the fuck I "condoned" anything asshole. SHOW ME where the fuck I picked a "tribe".

Pretty sad when the only participant in a thread who can't resist trolling is a fucking moderator.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

The one thing that has drawn me to the more conservative posters, if not conservative ideology per se, has to do with honesty. Ask most conservatives, and they will tell you straight out that they are conservative. There seems to be no end, however, to the number of absolute lock step leftists who try to claim they are something different than what they are.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Not a vendetta, just something that has to be done. I do not presume you approve the attack on the Capital Building. I also presume you are aware he invited them there for the "Stop The Steal" rally that morning and saw his appeal to the crowd sending to the Capital along with hearing his lawyer and his son's word on his stage. President's do not get to pull that kind of stuff, especially trying to overthrow an election. It must be answered by the adults of both houses in one way or another, lest we see repeat, possibly every 4 years. I understand you to be in trump's corner, but at some level you know this to be true and that he brought it on himself and the rest of the country.

EXACTLY. If the entity with the power to do so (the House) does NOT impeach, they're tacitly approving it. Lack of that action declares that it's OK. Whatever happens or doesn't happen in trial, the statement MUST be made, or future POTUSes will think they can do it too.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Not a vendetta, just something that has to be done. I do not presume you approve the attack on the Capital Building. I also presume you are aware he invited them there for the "Stop The Steal" rally that morning and saw his appeal to the crowd sending to the Capital along with hearing his lawyer and his son's word on his stage. President's do not get to pull that kind of stuff, especially trying to overthrow an election. It must be answered by the adults of both houses in one way or another, lest we see repeat, possibly every 4 years. I understand you to be in trump's corner, but at some level you know this to be true and that he brought it on himself and the rest of the country.

I've looked at his speech, White 6. A person has to make a stretch to even think that Trump inferred it. No words he spoke was to incite what went down.
You are correct, I, in no way condone what happened that day.

 

[BS Filter]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Not sure Chief Justice Roberts will be able to skirt it, even though it is an Ex- President. I do not see it be acceptable to the Republicans for Vice President Harris to preside, nor Senator Leahy. I wonder if he will slough it off to one of the associate justices. They come to the court by political appointment, but once there (for life) serve and decide presumably with little political partiality, supposedly on the merits of the cases and the constitution. I too would prefer someone not of the caustically partisan divided Senate. It would be a cop out for him to recuse himself, as it is in the District of Columbia and it is in his circuit as well as him being over the Federal circuit, but would be interesting to see it assigned to somebody like Kavanaugh or Kagan. Ruth is looking down chuckling. I suspect Roberts is stuck.

There is no choice, the Chief Justice is the presiding judge. No judge, no trial. Democrats can go pound sand.

 

[Pogo]

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

The one thing that has drawn me to the more conservative posters, if not conservative ideology per se, has to do with honesty. Ask most conservatives, and they will tell you straight out that they are conservative. There seems to be no end, however, to the number of absolute lock step leftists who try to claim they are something different than what they are.

You're responding to a TROLL who has no argument, and therefore must redefine his discussant. Nothing here has anything to do with "leftism" anyway. This is about an impeachment trial for inciting a riot. There's nothing "left" or "right" about that.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Will, I think he want no part of it for the same reason he wanted no part of the case of election fraud. He does not want to open up Pandora's box.

I think he views keeping a lid on things as the most prudent course of action.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If a person can be impeached after they leave office, what is to stop vengeful idiots from impeaching ANY former president?

I think it is high time we impeach Millard Fillmore, myself.

Let get something straight and Trump was already Impeached by the House before he left office and it is now the Senate choice to hold the trial and convict him of the charges that the House will send over.

So Trump has already been Impeached and there is no longer a question about Impeaching Trump but the question is should the Senate hold a trial to Convict him on the charges Trump face or give him a acquittal instead or just not hold a trial and leave it in limbo?

but again Trump was Impeached before he left office, so there is no debate about the impeachment but the debate is should a trial be performed or not is the question now?

 

[excalibur]

Roberts could just not show up, and there is no trial without him.

Or, he shows, a motion to dismiss is made, and he grants it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You're responding to a TROLL who has no argument, and therefore must redefine his discussant. Nothing here has anything to do with "leftism" anyway. This is about an impeachment trial for inciting a riot. There's nothing "left" or "right" about that.

Or you can display intellectual honesty, instead.

The choice is always up to you.

 

[BS Filter]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

From your linked article's original source, Politico...because this trial is not of a sitting president, but ex president, he does not have to be the one presiding over the impeachment according to the Constitution.... it can be someone like the President of the Senate, VP Harris, or longest Served Senator, Leahy.....

POLITICO Playbook: The Washington Trump leaves behind

And John Roberts tries to wriggle out of the Senate impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

JOHN ROBERTS WANTS OUT OF JURY DUTY: Multiple Republican and Democratic sources close to the impeachment trial negotiations tell us that Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS is looking to avoid presiding over impeachment proceedings.

We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “He wants no further part of this,” one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment when our Josh Gerstein reached out.

The Constitution delegates the chief justice to oversee impeachments of presidents, but this time around Trump will be an ex-president. That’s why lawmakers and aides were talking through the weekend about two other figures who historically have presided over lower-level impeachments: the vice president and the longest-serving member of the chamber. But would KAMALA HARRIS really want to do this in her first week on the job? If not, Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-Vt.) could be the guy.

Typical Democrats, making it up as they go along. How can you Constitutionality impeach and convict a person who is no longer in office?

 

[Meister]

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

The one thing that has drawn me to the more conservative posters, if not conservative ideology per se, has to do with honesty. Ask most conservatives, and they will tell you straight out that they are conservative. There seems to be no end, however, to the number of absolute lock step leftists who try to claim they are something different than what they are.

You're responding to a TROLL who has no argument, and therefore must redefine his discussant. Nothing here has anything to do with "leftism" anyway. This is about an impeachment trial for inciting a riot. There's nothing "left" or "right" about that.

You see what you want to see, Pogo/troll. I read the words from Trump, and not seeing what you and yours are seeing.
If he wanted a riot, he would have stated just that, he didn't. He was speaking how he felt about the election and the process.
That is not inciting a riot. And, what they've learned about the participants of the actual riot, tends to lean toward
the professional agitators like we've seen last summer with the mostly peaceful protests.

 

[Pogo]

You're responding to a TROLL who has no argument, and therefore must redefine his discussant. Nothing here has anything to do with "leftism" anyway. This is about an impeachment trial for inciting a riot. There's nothing "left" or "right" about that.

Or you can display intellectual honesty, instead.

The choice is always up to you.

Such as?

I've explained what the process is. Troll-boi has tried to put me in boxes and plopped strawmen about "condoning shenanigans". He can't show either one. Can you?

 

[Pogo]

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

The one thing that has drawn me to the more conservative posters, if not conservative ideology per se, has to do with honesty. Ask most conservatives, and they will tell you straight out that they are conservative. There seems to be no end, however, to the number of absolute lock step leftists who try to claim they are something different than what they are.

You're responding to a TROLL who has no argument, and therefore must redefine his discussant. Nothing here has anything to do with "leftism" anyway. This is about an impeachment trial for inciting a riot. There's nothing "left" or "right" about that.

You see what you want to see, Pogo/troll. I read the words from Trump, and not seeing what you and yours are seeing.
If he wanted a riot, he would have stated just that, he didn't. He was speaking how he felt about the election and the process.
That is not inciting a riot. And, what they've learned about the participants of the actual riot, tends to lean toward
the professional agitators like we've seen last summer with the mostly peaceful protests.

That's up to the trial, isn't it. Maybe if you drop everything and work real hard you can get yourself elected Senator. Until then it ain't up to you, troll.

And again --- Rump did not "infer" anything, since he never shuts up. The mob inferred, Rump implied. Actually he did more than imply, repeatedly using the word "fight".

Again this will all get stretched out in trial.

 

[BS Filter]

If Democrats put a Democrat as presiding judge, then the entire trial is a sham.

 

[Dr Grump]

Too little too late.

In my book, Roberts is a piece of shit.

He wouldn't even give a second look. That piece of shit on his shoe shows more sign of intelligence.