So the Chief Justice's role is only to announce dinnertime and bedtime and give an occasional scold.

[milestogo]

That's what it looks like to me.

[yellowcanine]

1. Not surprising. He is not really a judge. He is the presiding officer sitting in for the VP.

The VP is the President of the Senate for all legislation and for all impeachments except the impeachment of a president.

The Senate is also not really a jury. It is judge and jury combined. More like a military tribunal than a conventional judge/jury system.

[kentuck]

2. Human nature tells us that he will create a role before this is over.

Nobody likes to be ignored as irrelevant.

I think he may be waiting for the right time to make a ruling?

[onenote]

10. Don't hold your breath.

While there have only been two other presidential impeachment trials, there have been a number of impeachment trials of judges. And there has been a presiding officer at each one, the VP and/or a Senator named as President Pro Tempore during the session. And they aren't known for issuing "rulings" -- Roberts isn't going to suddenly decide he has a larger role to play than traditionally has been the case.

[magicarpet]

3. But,... but,... butt,...

Roberts bangs his little white tea cup to make his pronouncements final.

That's a chore, a task, a functional responsibility. He should get credit for this contribution - making this a smooth and flowing process.

Roberts should receive an extra $100K for every time he taps his little gavel/white tea cup as he tries to keep order and decorum to the entire process.

[jimfields33]

4. He's doing exactly what he's supposed to do

He’s basically a proctor.

[Atticus]

6. Who says? The Constitution says he is to "preside", not monitor. One who presides is

expected to guide and control the proceedings. While it is apparently true that a Senate vote could overrule him, his acquiescence in their lies and obstruction 1.) condones the conduct, and 2.) spares the Republicans from the political embarrassment of having to publicly vote in favor of mendacity and cover-up.

Between Roberts' spinelessness and the in-your-face LIES of Cippolone and Sekulow --- which pass without even a question or remark from the "presiding" judge --- the idea of equality before the law will be one of the unnoticed casualties of this "trial".

Any attorney or judge worthy of the name is embarrassed beyond words by this conduct.

[jimfields33]

7. I agree with you. I guess I'm listening to to many talking heads.

[Atticus]

9. Thanks for your response. Every "journalist" who repeats their crap without correction or

context is complicit in their obstruction and deception. We all have to be careful about who we believe.

[onenote]

8. I guess you don't know what the presiding officer of the Senate does.

And Roberts isn't a presiding "judge" -- he's the presiding officer. He has exactly the same role that the VP or any Senator sitting as President Pro Tempore of the Senate would have in an impeachment trial of someone other than President.

Since you referenced the Constitution, I'd be interested in where you think it says the CJ is a presciding "judge"? The members of the Senate are the "triers of fact" and "judges". A judge in a trial has decisional authority -- even in a jury trial, a "judge" can overrule the jury. In an impeachment, no one can overrule the Senate. Why? Because the Constitution expressly states that the Senate has the "sole" authority to try impeachments.

I know that isn't what you want to hear. But them's the facts

[Atticus]

12. Again, who says? Why did the founders choose to put a judge, the Chief Justice, in the

chair to "preside" if just any old senator would do? Why isn't Mitch "presiding"?

Constituional provisions are presumed to mean something, i.e., not be useless surplusage. You are repeating the OPINIONS of others as established fact. Roberts has the authority to truly "preside" if he chose to do so.

[onenote]

14. They chose to put the CJ in the chair only for presidential impeachments

In all other impeachments, the presiding officer is the VP -- and the founders realized it would be inappropriate to have the VP have any role in the impeachment of a president. Indeed, at the time the Constitution was written wasn't necessarily an ally of the president - the VP was, under the original Constitutional scheme, the person who came in second in Electoral College voting. It wasn't until 1804, with the ratification of the 12th amendment, that the VP was chosen separately from the President. Even today, however, it would be inappropriate for the VP to have a role in the impeachment trial since the VP has a signficant interest in the outcome distinct from that of anyone else.

Do you think that when the VP or President Pro Tempore "presides' over the Senate during regular sessions, or as the presiding officer in an impeachment trial, they have the authority you seem to be ascribing to the CJ? If you do, you're quite mistaken.

Words can have many different meanings. And in this case, one has to reconcile the express grant of "sole" power to "try" impeachments to the Senate, which inherently circumscribes the role of anyone who isn't a member of the Senate. And the Supreme Court has held that even the word "try" doesn't mean "try" in the same manner as a judicial trial. Which is why the Senate rules provide for, and the Supreme Court has allowed, the appointment of a committee of Senators to take testimony and review evidence and then report to the rest of the Senate rather than have evidence and testimony presented directly to the Senate. That procedure would never be used in a judicial trial -- but the founders didn't intend for impeachment trials to be "judicial" trials. If they had wanted that, they would have simply called for the Supreme Court or some other ad hoc judicial tribunal to hear impeachments. They considered and expressly rejected that approach.

[Atticus]

15. I am unaware of a SCOTUS decision which holds that "try" does not mean "try" when it

references impeachment. If you have the cite, I'd appreciate it.

But, no, I would not expect the VP or PPT to exercise the same power as the CJ when the POTUS is the defendant being tried. I do not equate the ordinary business of the Senate or even the impeachment of some little-known federal judge with a trial to determine whether the POTUS should be removed from office and stripped of his or her power.

[onenote]

16. Nixon v US (1993):

Petitioner argues that the word "try" in the first sentence imposes by implication an additional requirement on the Senate in that the proceedings must be in the nature of a judicial trial. From there petitioner goes on to argue that this limitation precludes the Senate from delegating to a select committee the task of hearing the testimony of witnesses, as was done pursuant to Senate Rule XI. "'[T]ry' means more than simply 'vote on' or 'review' or 'judge.' In 1787 and today, trying a case means hearing the evidence, not scanning a cold record." Brief for Petitioner 25. Petitioner concludes from this that courts may review whether or not the Senate "tried" him before convicting him.

There are several difficulties with this position which lead us ultimately to reject it. The word "try," both in 1787 and later, has considerably broader meanings than those to which petitioner would limit it. Older dictionaries define try as

"[t]o examine" or "[t]o examine as a judge." See 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1785). In more modern usage the term has various meanings. For example, try can mean "to examine or investigate judicially," "to conduct the trial of," or "to put to the test by experiment, investigation, or trial." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2457 (1971). Petitioner submits that "try," as contained in T. Sheridan, Dictionary of the English Language (1796), means "to examine as a judge; to bring before a judicial tribunal." Based on the variety of definitions, however, we cannot say that the Framers used the word "try" as an implied limitation on the method by which the Senate might proceed in trying impeachments. "As a rule the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require .... " Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U. S. 368, 376 (1921).

The conclusion that the use of the word "try" in the first sentence of the Impeachment Trial Clause lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senate's actions is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments: The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings by the use of the word "try" in the first sentence.

[Atticus]

20. I had no intent to begin a law review discussion with my OP, but I do appreciate

your lawyerly response. The issue in Nixon v. US, however, was whether SCOTUS should undertake to review whether or not a Senate impeachment trial was properly conducted. Unsurprisingly, in my opinion, they decided such a review would be inappropriate.

While there was discussion of the meaning of "try", the court declined to impose any limitations on the Senate and, if I recall correctly, said the the word "try" was too vague or unspecific for the court to define it in any way that limited how the Senate chose to interpret it.

I read nothing which clearly prohibits the CJ from taking a more active role in the trial where necessary to prevent outright lying by counsel and to assure that all relevant evidence is considered.

That's my take. You're welcome to yours. Neither of us can impact the outcome of this farce.

[COLGATE4]

19. Remember at the time of the Founding Fathers the role of

Chief Justice was not at all defined. It didn't become important (along with the entire Supreme Court) until Justice Marshall made it so, declaring that the Court had the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

[treestar]

5. He is a substitute VEEP

he could vote to break a tie.

The founders didn’t want the regular VEEP here because in their day he could have been a political opponent of the impeached president.

[DeminPennswoods]

11. Someone has to direct a question to the chair or

ask for a ruling. So far, except for Collins' note about decorum, no one has. I suspect this will change today when Cipollone or another WH lawyer tells a flat out lie.

[onenote]

13. There will be no such rulings.

The CJ is not the arbiter of the truth of statements made during the impeachment. Indeed, even if he was serving as a "judge" -- which he most certainly is not --he wouldn't have that authority. I don't know how many trials you've attended or participated in -- I've been practicing law for 40 years and I've heard lawyers and witnesses say things that were blatantly untrue. And I've never heard an opposing lawyer ask the judge for a spot ruling about those statements. Sure, opposing counsel can object to statements by the other side on limited grounds. But truth or falsity of an opposing lawyer's statements is generally not one. of them.

[DeminPennswoods]

17. This isn't a normal trial, either,

with normal trial rules. The presiding officer can make a ruling on any question posed to the chair.

[COLGATE4]

18. So it has been. Rhenquist once said that the most

important thing he did during Clinton's impeachment trial was designing his new robe for the occasion.