When a chief justice reminded senators in an impeachment trial that they were not jurors

[TheBlackAdder]

.

“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.”

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators’ roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in 1999.
AP/Joe Marquette

Harkin had prepared well, basing his argument on the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the rules of the Senate itself.

He explained that “the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury.”

Instead, Harkin continued, “What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. … Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions.”



Chief Justice weighs in

The Chief Justice sustained the objection.

“The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”

Rehnquist thus admonished the House Managers “to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”

Rehnquist and Harkin got it right. Article III of the Constitution provides that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” and for good reasons.
.
.
.
In an ordinary trial, the jury’s role is generally limited to fact-finding, while the judge determines the scope and application of the law. In an impeachment trial, however, the Senate itself has the “sole power” to decide every issue.


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/when-a-chief-justice-reminded-senators-in-an-impeachment-trial-that-they-were-not-jurors/

.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. "in this case"

So Rehnquist was leaving open the possibility that in another impeachment trial, the Senate could be viewed, or view itself, as something else.

"triers of law and fact"? Those declaring their minds made up pre-trial are not such.

I would call Republican Senators "cleansers of last resort"

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. judges decide law, juries decide facts ...

Rehnquist declared the Senate must take both roles.

Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey have callously discarded both law and fact to make up their minds before impeachment has even taken place.

They are Russiapublicans.

[lastlib]

5. ...republikans decide "alternate facts."

[LudwigPastorius]

2. "In an impeachment trial, however, the Senate itself has the "sole power" to decide every issue."

...and you can bet that McConnell and Co. will set the rules, and otherwise stack the deck, to give Trump a swift acquittal.

The majority will run roughshod over Senate Democrats, shutting them down at every turn. The narrative that the impeachment is just an attempt to overthrow the 2016 election will be front and center and continually pushed to the viewing audience. It's going to make for disgusting watching.

Which is why, I advocate waiting and continuing investigation of Trump. There has to be smoking gun level evidence of his mendacity.
We need to wait for the courts to come through to force testimony and the release of documents. There is no telling what other crimes were recorded during Trump phone calls. The people deserve to know just how crooked the president of this country is.

[world wide wally]

3. I object!

We all know that this group of "deciders" have no concept of what "facts" are