I am not so naive to believe that SCOTUS justices don’t know how to play the Beltway game, and get their messages out subtly through proxies/allies. You really think Rand Paul is just a mind reader who is willing to make statements wantonly without first making sure that he isn’t stepping on toes/ misrepresenting his allies?
No on the first, yes on the second.
Ok. Agree to disagree. I give a seasoned Senator more credit than that. No matter what their party is, if they’ve been around for a couple terms, they know the game. Maybe you’re unaware, but the Judiciary and Legislative branches do talk to each other...
Truly, The Supremes don't really play that game. Life appointment, in his case, Chief Justice for life. No constituents. What is the gain? Cases come and cases go. There is a new docket every year. Most of the lawyers that argue before them they have seen many times. It is a small clique. If someone knows enough to predict a Justice's position it is because they have probably written on something related a dozen times or more before. As mentioned above, I think they do, especially Roberts, care about the image and legitimacy of the court. Nothing positive for the Court comes from a Justice stooping down to the level of a politician.
Precedent.
You are certainly entitled to believe that he could be played by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
I have no earthly idea what you are referencing. If you are talking about member here like @Brett327 and @BigRed389 I can't imagine how what they think on this subject, of all things, could possible effect your sleep. The republic does not stand or fall on this issue.
Elaborate please. What is his interest in precedent here? Presiding over the trial sets no legal precedent. Those are all Senate procedural precedents.
I'm going to use a Brett quote here so I'm immune from prosecution, but when you have people whose brains are broken liking what you're posting, to me that means you're on the wrong side of an argument.
I have no interest in your petty personal beefs. We have got along fine. Please tell me how Roberts and the Court benefits from a unspoken signal he doesn't approve of the trial. I just don't see it. Not their MO.
A law professor who wrote a book about impeachment said that he’s shirking his duty by not being there.
Literally everything in both the Senate and SCOTUS rests on precedent. I’m not just talking case law alone, but also the politicial and parliamentary precedents.
We could argue all day about late Impeachment. I have stated that I am on the fence and would prefer a legal arguement to help me. The history, law and precedent is the Chief presides for a Presidential trial. Trump is not the President. That is consistent with the argument over late impeachment that Article 2 section 4 refers to the sitting president only. I have read plenty that argues otherwise. Hense my weakening position.A law professor who wrote a book about impeachment said that he’s shirking his duty by not being there.
As far as the “petty personal beefs”, if you don’t find it odd that the never-Trumpers are in your camp here then congratulations.
“Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a recent book on impeachment, said he would have preferred that Roberts preside over the upcoming trial, even though he believes his absence is constitutional.
Bowman told The Hill the arguments being lobbed by Senate Republicans shows that Roberts's non-participation has already given them "another procedural excuse to vote against conviction in a case that's a slam dunk on the facts."
"It would be better to have Roberts in the chair. But not, I think, an error of constitutional dimension not to have him there," he said. "Still, since I have reason to think that Roberts was requested to appear, but declined, I find myself disappointed in him. I think he's shirking here."”
Why John Roberts’s absence from Senate trial isn’t a surprise
Chief Justice John Roberts’s apparent decision to sidestep former President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial met with some criticism but little surprise among court watchers who have long noted h…www.google.com
Of course. Lets try again. WHAT VALUE DOES ROBERTS OR THE COURT GET OUT OF HIM SUGGESTING SOMETHING BY HIS ACTIONS TO MAKE PRECEDENT IN THE SENATE. I understand precedent both in the court and the Senate. I don't care about precedent. I am wondering why Roberts would be interested in setting precedent in the Senate. I don't think he is. He read the plain language of the Constitution looked at the history and decided. Big deal.
