Call the phone of Chief Justice Roberts Monday morning!!

[Grasswire2]

202-479-3472

Demand witnesses

Demand decorum from Republicans who are breaking the rules

[Ms. Toad]

1. It's not up to Roberts to decide on whether witnesses are allowed.

Call your congresscritters. The Senate, specifically. They are the ones who can decide to allow witnesses.

[pbmus]

3. ,......

Roberts has to decide whether to call balls and strikes like Chase did, or to fully remove himself from the game, like Rehnquist did. Unless bipartisan agreement is reached on trial rules and testimony, Democrats will surely move for the appearance of witnesses such as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. Senators will have the final word on testimony, with Republicans in control. However, Roberts could still rule in favor of calling witnesses and force Republican Senators to take an override vote. Even if the Republican majority holds fast and overrules him, the political consequences would be profound.

Democrats would pounce upon the vote against the ruling by Roberts as proof that Republican senators, including those up for reelection, had trampled on impartial justice to rig the trial and engineer a coverup for Trump. Whether he chooses to rule on urgent matters or decides not to decide, Roberts will influence the trial of the century one way or another.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/476282-will-justice-roberts-call-balls-and-strikes-at-the-impeachment-trial

[Ms. Toad]

4. That's a bit of a misread of an article that does not clearly state its premise.

There are two potential scenarios in which Roberts could rule on witnesses - there is a 50-50 tie on whehter to permit witnesses (in which case - as the presiding officer) he might choose to break the tie. The other is if witnesses are allowed by senate rules - and executive privilege is claimed.

The former is probably slightly more likely than the latter, since if he ruled on executive privilege claims he would then need to recuse himself from any later judicial decisions on the executive privilege claims.

But, as a general rule, the rules about witnesses are set by the senate. Not Roberts.

[pbmus]

5. .....

Conclusions:

1. The Senate lacks authority to adopt any rule placing any limit whatsoever on the Chief Justice’s power to preside over this trial. In his capacity as presiding officer, Justice Roberts has unlimited authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and if the occasion arises, he should so rule.

2. Even if one were to assume Senate Rule VII passed constitutional muster, the rule is quite limited, and arguably would not prevent the Chief Justice from issuing a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents. The ability to overturn a ruling on relevance is not a grant of total authority to overrule every act of the presiding officer.

https://time.com/5768467/john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell-witnesses/

[onenote]

7. The Constitution gives the Senate "sole" power to try impeachments

And the Supreme Court has held that "sole" really means "sole". This is not a judicial proceeding and the role of the CJ in a presidential impeachment in "presiding" over the proceeding is the same as the role that would be played by the VP or President Pro Tempore of the Senate during the impeachment of any other official -- something that neither the Hill nor the Time opinion pieces takes into consideration. There have been her a dozen impeachment trials and the presiding officer-- who is not a presiding "judge"-- has never claimed power to unilaterally call witnesses apart from Samuel Chase's failed attempt.

Roberts won't take the role some people want him to take because historical and Supreme Court precedent -- and the plain language of the Constitution -- stands against it. "Preside" doesn't mean acquire the powers of a judge -- the VP or the President Pro Tempore "preside" over the the Senate in non-impeachment matters and no one thinks that they have the powers of a judge. And the Senate rules of impeachment clearly state that while the presiding officer in an impeachment trial can rule on questions of materiality, relevancy etc of evidence, it is the Senate that is given the power to compel the attendance of witnesses.

One other point, however: The CJ cannot compel the attendance of a witness by casting a vote to break a 50-50 tie. If there is a motion to compel witnesses and the vote thereon is 50-50, the motion has not gotten a majority and it fails. There is no need for a tie breaking vote in that instance.

[intrepidity]

8. What do you think of Neal Katyal's opinion piece?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

But turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.

(Snip)

The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.

President Trump’s allies have tried to distort a separate rule (also still in effect), hoping that it could be stretched to say that a majority of senators can override the chief justice’s decision. Rule VII reads, in the relevant part: “the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate.” So President Trump’s allies are hoping that last clause authorizes a majority of Senators to overrule the chief justice on matters including subpoena issuance.

[BigmanPigman]

2. The Senate DC Directory [phone]

Call the GOP senators! They are the ones voting for or against witnesses. I called all 53 last week in only a few hours, and that included getting addresses (Google Zillow for empty houses' addresses) from each state to confirm constituency if asked. It's easy and fast...and well worth the effort. Plus it helps to blow off steam (a win/win).

Call the Dem House managers to say Thank You too. Here are their phone numbers....
https://www.democraticunderground.com/11002113

[calimary]

6. Kicking!