So I'm imagining Justice Roberts Presiding over Impeachment

[dave29]

and I'm wondering whether or not a Chief Justice has ever presided over the impeachment of a President that nominated him? Would he have to recuse himself? I know he'd largely be a ceremonial figurehead but still. How screwed up would that be.

[rusty charly]

1. Like everything else in the last six years:

very.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. No

he wouldn't have to recuse himself.

There've only been two presidential impeachment trials: Johnson's presided over by Salmon P. Chase (appointed by Lincoln) and Clinton's presided over by William Rehnquist (appointed to the court by Nixon, elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan).

But the constitution says simply that the chief justice shall preside, and makes no exception.

[meow2u3]

14. What if the chief justice is the one facing an impeachment trial?

Last time I looked, the Constitution does not delineate which Supreme Court justice presides over an impeachment trial of the Chief Justice, in part because it never happened in our history.

In other words, if Chief Justice Roberts were to be impeached, who would preside over his impeachment trial in the Senate? Hopefully not Scalia, Thomas, or Alito; they'd actively lobby the Senate to acquit him.

[Toots]

3. I would hope he could find enough stars to wear on his shoulders

The last Chief Justice dressed his robes up with stripes on his sleeves. I think this would would promote himself to at least General and wear stars instead..

[William769]

4. One thing to remember, he is not above Impeachment himself. NT.

[pnwmom]

5. Who would preside over that? n/t

[stevedeshazer]

6. Good question

I've wondered about that too.

[William769]

7. Another Supreme court Justice. NT.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. No

the Vice President would.

[William769]

9. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

[pnwmom]

10. Then we are doomed. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Why?

For example, when it is the Vice President who is being impeached?

I believe the Senate can take a vote and appoint whomever a majority feels is appropriate.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Because the vice-president

is the presiding officer of the Senate.

If the Vice-President is being impeached, many believe the presiding duty would fall to the President Pro Tempore (Robert Byrd, now), but there's no precedent, and no ruling on this.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Whomever the Senate appoints

See post #11, which quotes the Constitution. The only requirement for judge of an impeachment trial is when the trial is held against the President. Presumably in other cases, the Senate may appoint whomever they feel is most appropriate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I don't think he *can* recuse himself, even if he wanted to

Article I, Section 3, para. 6:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

He can recuse himself (or, presumably, the Senate may appoint a different judge against the Chief Justice's will) for the impeachment trial of the Vice President, cabinet members, judges or any other person. The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over the trial of the President and does not make any allowances otherwise.

[Benhurst]

15. Yeah he'd preside; but would he wear that absurd robe Rehnquist

ripped off from a Gilbert and Sullivan farce (Iolanthe) for the occasion?

[Golden Raisin]

17. I don't know but am reminded

of some appropriate lines from 'The Lion in Winter'. I can't remember them exactly or quote verbatim but it's something to the effect of:

COURTIER: "Will the Pope grant an annulment?" (of Henry II's marriage to Eleanor of Acquitaine)

HENRY II: "I think so, since he owes me one Papacy."