Really - Why Is Justice Roberts Even There?.....

[global1]

he's not going to weigh in on any verdict. Judge Judy would have been a better choice. Robert's is just eye candy for the Repugs and Trump.

[SCantiGOP]

1. He's there because the Constitution requires it

And he may have some rulings that will be critical to the proceedings.

[global1]

3. What Kind Of Rulings Does He Have A Constitutional Right To Weigh In On?.....nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. No surprise there,

he's the ultimate corporate lawyer, a rightwing fascist.

Who knows, he may have banged one of Epstein's stable of 12-year-olds and Barr has that evidence to hold over his head to keep him in line.

[uponit7771]

4. To remind America how much of a hack he is, this issue isn't about lying about consensual sex

.... or pissing off the senate by firing someone.

To those who've been paying half attention we effectively don't have a 2020 election.

[Brother Buzz]

5. He's the playground monitor

He has to, in theory, stay neutral. We shall see.

[CincyDem]

6. I think there's an SNL cold open...with Judge Judy presiding over Schiff v. Trump n/t

[BigmanPigman]

7. He isn't entertaining like the guy in the English Parliament.

I forget his name but I loved him when he would call "Order, Order!".

[Chellee]

11. John Bercow nt

[dalton99a]

12. John Bercow

[brooklynite]

8. What -- seriously -- should Roberts be doing?

Jodges don't get to decide what's "right" in legal procedure; they decide if actions are compliant with it. In the case of the Impeachment Trial, all that's happening now are Senate motions on what the legal procedures should be.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. Bah! He ain't even packin' a shotgun!

[Rulii]

9. Roberts is a Republican

Not to be trusted.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. He needs to rula a mistrial if there's no witnesses OR no documents.

But, of course, he won't.

[ancianita]

14. Not because of him, but because of the Constitution and Senate rules.

[onenote]

15. under what law and authority would he rule a mistrial?

reminder: the constitution confers "sole" authority on the Senate to try impeachments. Sole. Got it?

The CJ is the presiding officer only in presidential impeachments. Otherwise it is the presiding officer of the Senate - that is the VP or theP President Pro Tem. They aren't "judges" or expected to wield the type of power a judge has. They are presiding officers who basically implement the process as defined by the Senate.

[dalton99a]

13. McConnell is not mentioned in the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts is

While McConnell is not mentioned in the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts is. Indeed, it is the Chief Justice of the United States who shall “preside” over the trial, not the Majority Leader. So why isn’t it up to Roberts to decide whether witnesses shall appear?

Absent anything in the Constitution to the contrary, it seems obvious that the witness dispute should be resolved by the ruling of the constitutionally appointed “Presiding Officer” of the trial. This is especially true if we were to abide by the conservative element of our judiciary that insists on the strict construction of the words of any constitutional or statutory provision.

Why isn’t “let presiding officer decide” the guiding principle here? Because the Senate, without a shred of constitutional authority, has adopted a set of rules that would effectively strip the presiding officer of much of his power to “preside” over the trial.

Are those Senate rules constitutional? I keep a pocket copy of the Constitution in my backpack. I have reread it a dozen times. I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial.

Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks. ...

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

[ancianita]

16. The coequal status of the Judiciary won't allow his overturning any rules of the Senate.

[onenote]

17. Except there is something "contrary" in the Constitution

The conferral of "sole" power to try impeachments on the Senate. The "presiding officer" isn't a judge. He's a traffic cop who implements the procedural rules adopted by the Senate pursuant to its constitutional authority to be the sole trier of impeachments.

[brooklynite]

19. "Why isn't "let presiding officer decide" the guiding principle here?"

Because the Presiding Officer in a Court trial doesn't get to decide either. They get to decide whether evidence and motions are compliant with the legal procedures that have been separately agreed to.

[NewJeffCT]

20. The last chance would be

after both sides present their cases over the 3 days apiece, if the Senate again votes for no witnesses and no documents, Roberts could speak up at that time and force the GOP to vote against both.

I'm not sure what will happen there.