Chief Justice Roberts, as presider over the Senate trial, NOT allow a motion to dismiss proceedings?

[ancianita]

Does he have that power?

[Historic NY]

1. Yes he is the Judge

[ancianita]

2. So he can remind the Senate that this is a trial, NOT the "regular order" of Senate business, and

allow House managers to proceed with the House Articles and anything else.

Right?

If so, we've got a shot.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. As for a shot, I think the withdrawal method is more reliable.

[ancianita]

4. In trial terms, what does that mean?

[Baitball Blogger]

5. It means that the right has been intentionally moving towards a power grab

for sometime, and Roberts may have been playing at being an objective judge. It's a crap shoot to what he might do.

[ancianita]

8. You mean he just won't run a trial? He'll let Senate session rules allow for a "motion to dismiss"

trial proceedings with House managers, and go straight to an Articles vote?

Doesn't sound consistent with his previous judicial philosophy of ruling by precedent.

Just because impeachment doesn't have much precedent, do you really think that means he's 50-50 about doing things Mitch McConnell's way?

[Baitball Blogger]

15. We'll soon find out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. The Chief Justice is the "presiding officer" of the trial only in cases

involving the president or the vice president. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Senate's rules governing impeachment, not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, so that would be possible only if the Senate's rules provide for it. Chief Justice Rehnquist did very little during the Clinton impeachment trial besides making sure the schedule was kept and that the Senators followed their own rules.

[ancianita]

11. unblock says no. That senate rules apply. What say you?

[unblock]

7. No. Even though the Chief Justice presides over the trial ,

The senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases, so it happens under senate rules.

[ancianita]

9. Senate rules are legislation rules. The Senate is not judicial, by definition. So why should senate

rules even apply in what becomes a real trial with a chief justice presiding.

If that can happen, then this would be a sham trial run by a Senate leader.

[unblock]

12. It's not a trial in the judicial sense.

It's a proceeding under senate rules.

See Nixon v. United States 1993.
Doesn't exactly address your specific question, but does clarify that it happens under senate rules, not the rules of the judicial branch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

[ancianita]

16. What other sense is there? What this clarifies is that anyone would not see this as a proper trial.

More like a formal senate session, a play court, with the Justice as pretend judge, not preserving anything "in the Judicial sense" but the "appearance" of politicos of playing at objectivity.

This is the most shammy kind of non-trial I've ever heard of. Just add a kangaroo.

It's like the structural fix like the "electoral" "college." Just keep the electors' names secret; only voters have to be "identified" to "prevent" "election fraud."

It's a trial that is no trial -- it's where fact-based impeachments for Chief Executive high crimes and misdemeanors go to DIE.

I can't even.

[unblock]

17. the impeachment mechanism is really just a way to fire someone from their job.

do you get a formal trial with a judge and jury at your place of work if they're thinking of firing you?

there's a process, and while the constitution does use the words "try" and "tried", there's really no implication that they have to use anything resembling the same rules and procedures the judicial branch uses in criminal cases.

in fact, the constitution expressly gives the senate the *sole* power to try all impeachment cases, which pretty clearly implies that the judicial branch doesn't have much of a say in that process.

if you think of it more like a performance review where a president, vice-president, or civil officer of the united states can be removed from office. the senate is basically just called on to decide if they should be fired or not.

nor is impeachment a substitute for a criminal trial, as after removal from office, the fired officer may still be subject to criminal liability. so it actually doesn't really make sense for the senate to even try to duplicate much of the process that would later happen in a criminal court anyway (assuming the person later gets prosecuted).

the senate just needs to determine if the accused should be fired, and have a process to reasonably answer that question.


in practice, the house managers do present their case, and there are witnesses and such, and the defense is allowed to present their case. but all the nuances of cross-examination and rules of evidence and so on need not be observed unless the senate opts to do so.

[ritapria]

10. Rehnquist

Rehnquist did not seem to have any power during the Clinton Impeachment Trial ..His role seemed to be entirely ceremonial ...

[ancianita]

13. Maybe that's because there actually was a trial rather than a motion to go straight to a vote.

[ancianita]

14. Thanks, everyone. I think I got my answer. All the replies are much appreciated.