General Discussion

Atticus

(15,124 posts) Thu Jan 16, 2020, 11:59 AM Jan 2020

"preside": "to exercise guidance, direction and control". That's how the dictionary defines

the term.

The Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the impeachment trial of a POTUS.

Will he, or will he refer all decisions ( relevancy, subpoenas, etc. ) to McConnell and his squirming caucus?

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"preside": "to exercise guidance, direction and control". That's how the dictionary defines (Original Post) Atticus Jan 2020 OP

Good question. There is not a lot of precedent for MineralMan Jan 2020 #1

Rehnquist did. maxsolomon Jan 2020 #2

I think his role has been misinterpreted. Media keeps saying he will just sit there, but I don't Karadeniz Jan 2020 #3

MineralMan

(148,197 posts)

1. Good question. There is not a lot of precedent for

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 16, 2020, 12:01 PM

Jan 2020

Chief Justices presiding over presidential impeachment proceedings. I think we will have to wait and see.

maxsolomon

(35,504 posts)

2. Rehnquist did.

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 16, 2020, 12:03 PM

Jan 2020

We'll see how Roberts wants to play it. It is not possible that he doesn't understand McConnell's threats to short-circuit the process.

There's not much we can do about it except call out bullshit when we see it.

Karadeniz

(23,653 posts)

3. I think his role has been misinterpreted. Media keeps saying he will just sit there, but I don't

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Thu Jan 16, 2020, 08:58 PM

Jan 2020

Read the constitution that way. It says the senate will conduct a fair trial and he will preside over it, a fair trial. So when senators said they'd already made up their minds, he should've said their votes wouldn't be counted. When McConnell vetoed witnesses, he should've pointed out that it is his job to insure a fair trial, not a kangaroo court.

Reply to this discussion