General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe solution to the McConnell/Pelosi impasse is crystal clear and just struck me
I am confident that there would be 51 votes in the senate to throw it to Chief Justice John Roberts to decide if and what witnesses should be called. Throw it to the Chief to decide after hearing arguments from the house managers and Toad's attorneys. It's a gamble but I'm pretty sure Roberts will allow witnesses. That also is a compromise to the GOP position.
So, the deal would be for the senators to take themselves out of the process and allow Roberts to decide, perhaps with a caveat that 51 senators can still overturn his decisions if it is deemed too outrageous somehow.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,812 posts)The Constitution only talks about the responsibilities of the House and the Senate in this regard. Which would mean Roberts, even if asked to get involved, can't.
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)As per the constitution. He is also given the opportunity to make rulings on evidentiary motions, etc., during the trial. He has a choice, he can make the ruling himself or he can take himself out of it and say that the senate must decide on its own. If he decides, it takes 51 votes to overrule his decisions.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Rehnquist did nothing....and did it well.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,812 posts)So then the real question is, given that he would preside over the impeachment trial, would he be anything other than a toady to Trump, McConnell, and the rest?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)at the Senate trial of an impeached President. Rehnquist was the Judge at Bill Clinton's trial.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)Besides, it's highly unlikely that any GOP Senators would vote to give up control of the process, so I have no idea where you're getting 51.
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)If the senate GOP rejects it, then we should never transmit the articles. Making the argument that the judge should decide would resonate with a lot of the public and it is within the senate rules for Roberts to make evidentiary decisions.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)Suggesting something that isn't an option would just make us look like we don't understand the process.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)If they don't get the articles there won't be a need for 1
Kablooie
(18,608 posts)Roberts is likely to run the trial with decorum at honesty which is exactly what the Republicans dont want. Their whole defense is based on chaos and confusion so they need to keep control themselves.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)And the Rehnquist precedent was to follow Senate rules (and refer many decisions to the full Senate - which can overrule him anyway).
So the proposal boils down to letting the trial begin and trusting that there are three or more Republicans who would insist on a fair process.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)In each of the previous impeachments the senate overturned the judges rulings routinely.