General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am concerned about CJ Roberts not presiding over the impeachment trial. [View all]TomSlick
(11,098 posts)In FP 65, Hamilton argues having the CJ preside as being a good combination of the legislative and judicial branches in cases of impeachment. There is no reference to the CJ presiding to avoid having the VP preside over a proceeding from which they might benefit.
I think you make a good point. The VP ought not preside in a case in which a sitting President might be removed. However, based on FP 65 and 66, it is not clear that avoiding that problem is the reason for having the CJ preside.
Sen. Schumer just said on Rachel that CJ Roberts did not want the job. I will assume his statement is based on communications from the CJ. In which case, my concerns are resolved. It has been an interesting academic discussion but it is apparently moot.