Roberts sworn in to preside over Trump impeachment trial

[NWRatCon]

This isn't a judicial proceeding.

"Preside" in this case is more equivalent to a committee chair. The chief justice is there to keep things moving, and does carry some influence in that role. But ultimately the Senate makes the rules that he enforces.

That is an incorrect statement. Go back to the Andrew Johnson impeachment. CJ Chase certainly didn't agree with your interpretation, and he was in a better position to understand it.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm done. There is no point in discussing anything with you if you're just going to cover your ears and scream na-na na-na boo boo like a 6 year-old.

I'd like to give this post multiple thumbs up.

 

[NWRatCon]

I want all Presidents, Democrat or Republican, to be in the position of possibly being impeached if they abuse the office of the President.

I have made the argument before that all federal officers should behave as if they could be removed at any moment. Theirs is a position of trust, not of right. They serve only so long as they honor their oath of office - to protect and defend the Constitution. Once that oath is violated... Find a different job.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, they do, especially if they will be establishing precedent.

Only one person in that Senate Trial, is vested with the judicial Power of the United States; coincidence or conspiracy to follow our federal doctrine.

If the argument is that Congress ought to follow our "federal doctrine" then Mr. Trump has a legitinate legal objection to the impeachment itself.
Otherwise, " sole power" means "sole power" to the Senate as well as to the House.

 

[danielpalos]

If the argument is that Congress ought to follow our "federal doctrine" then Mr. Trump has a legitimate legal objection to the impeachment itself.
Otherwise, " sole power" means "sole power" to the Senate as well as to the House.

there is no legitimate objection but to not do the offence.

The Senate has the sole power to render a verdict by trying the case.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is there to exercise the judicial Power of the United States to establish precedent and "break any ties".

 

[dcsports]

The Presiding officer in this case comes from the judicial branch vested with the judicial Power.

We've been through this before, but that's not what 'judicial power' means. He has no 'judicial power' in that sense. He doesn't wave a magic gavel over his head, and scream "By the power of SCOTUS, I have the power!!" and transform into his robes.

The framers felt there was a potential conflict having the "president of the senate" (the vice president) preside over an impeachment trial, where the VP would potentially become the president. (Remember, at that time the second place candidate became the VP.) So they specified that the Chief Justice would preside. This also allows him to serve as a neutral party and potential mediator, given the gravity of the situation. However, the Senate still sets the rules.

Note that the Chief Justice doesn't really have any 'power' on his own. He serves as the administrator and chair of the supreme court. That's a very similar role to what he does in an impeachment trial. Judicial 'decisions' involve the full court. The Supreme Court itself would only come into play if for some reason there was a constitutional question on the outcome that was appealed to the high court.

 

[dcsports]

That is an incorrect statement. Go back to the Andrew Johnson impeachment. CJ Chase certainly didn't agree with your interpretation, and he was in a better position to understand it.

It is correct, and the reality of the situation. Chase did impose the initial rules, but the senate did overrule him in some situations. It makes sense that there would be some working through the first presidential impeachment process. The senate has a more formal process in place now.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It merely requires bad faith and unfair dealing to be impeached.

Which is why the term has come to mean so little recently. Perhaps they could bring it more up-to-date once this sham is over.

 

[NWRatCon]

Which is why the term has come to mean so little recently. Perhaps they could bring it more up-to-date once this sham is over.

Do you mean the sham presidency of Donald Trump?

 

[dcsports]

Which is why the term has come to mean so little recently. Perhaps they could bring it more up-to-date once this sham is over.

I've been trying to come up with some 'fix' tot this, and it's tough. Clearly, the framers felt that representatives would work with some degree of objectivity - looking at country over party, and impeaching for truly serious offenses. They never intended this to be a partisan weapon, or for it to include things that one party deems 'abuse of power' to remove a president. They wanted to reserve the overturning of an election for clear, grave, acts. They left some room for subjectivity, knowing that they couldn't predict every possible offense. The fact that Democrats chose to initiate a very partisan process redefine the term short-circuited this intent.

It's tough to redefine this, in a way that would be acceptable, to allow some discretion but still limit a one party coup. About the only safeguard I see is using the same one the founders put in place to prevent partisan abuse in the senate - require a 2/3 vote of the house to impeach.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Do you mean the sham presidency of Donald Trump?

The sentence and intent seems clear enough and shouldn't need further explanation. Perhaps you can ask a friend what it means

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I've been trying to come up with some 'fix' tot this, and it's tough. Clearly, the framers felt that representatives would work with some degree of objectivity - looking at country over party, and impeaching for truly serious offenses. They never intended this to be a partisan weapon, or for it to include things that one party deems 'abuse of power' to remove a president. They wanted to reserve the overturning of an election for clear, grave, acts. They left some room for subjectivity, knowing that they couldn't predict every possible offense. The fact that Democrats chose to initiate a very partisan process redefine the term short-circuited this intent.

It's tough to redefine this, in a way that would be acceptable, to allow some discretion but still limit a one party coup. About the only safeguard I see is using the same one the founders put in place to prevent partisan abuse in the senate - require a 2/3 vote of the house to impeach.

Good post, Thanks
I may be wrong but i feel that there was also a sense of honor involved in the founder'ts words and to be impeached would, like Nancy Pelosi obviously hopes, be an historical stain on anyone who abused the position and was so tarred.

But when the poorly educated rookies recently entered Congress they, along with their supporters, began demanding 'impeachment' before the Trump Presidency even began. The word lost its impact. much like what happened to 'racist' and 'fascist'.

Given that 'honor' is no longer a serious personal concern among too many politicians perhaps the impeachment process should just be abandoned and any wrongdoing would go straight to the courts. However there might be a day in the future where the courts become as politicized as the House is today, and those attempts are being made today.

It seems a lot depends on personal honor and once that disappears the country will certainly be more difficult to govern for another 245 years.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I'm done. There is no point in discussing anything with you if you're just going to cover your ears and scream na-na na-na boo boo like a 6 year-old.

At last, I will not bear the duty of reading more of your taunts or insults.

 

[Marine Electric]

That is the left's opinions and have no evidence to prove it. They impeached Trump with no evidence, that's why they want new witnesses, because they know the evidence they used to impeach Trump wasn't enough but they impeached him anyway.

Fake-news.

You're merely repeating, like a retarded parrot, the lies sean hannity told you. The evidence is overwhelming:

- “do us a favor though.”
- Crooked Donald solicited from Ukraine, two investigations in order to obtain a personal political benefit, not because the investigations served the national interest.
- illegally withheld $391 million in taxpayer-funded military assistance to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated
- Crooked Donald obstructed Congress by undertaking an unprecedented campaign to prevent House Committees from investigating his misconduct

These are indisputable FACTS that have been submitted as EVIDENCE in the impeachment of Donald J. Trump - and we're just scratching the surface here.

:2wave:

 

[Moderate Right]

Fake-news.

You're merely repeating, like a retarded parrot, the lies sean hannity told you. The evidence is overwhelming:

- “do us a favor though.”
- Crooked Donald solicited from Ukraine, two investigations in order to obtain a personal political benefit, not because the investigations served the national interest.
- illegally withheld $391 million in taxpayer-funded military assistance to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated
- Crooked Donald obstructed Congress by undertaking an unprecedented campaign to prevent House Committees from investigating his misconduct

These are indisputable FACTS that have been submitted as EVIDENCE in the impeachment of Donald J. Trump - and we're just scratching the surface here.

:2wave:

I don't listen to Hannity, so you are wrong. Jesus, it is YOU GUYS who are so brainwashed about everything that they think anyone who defends Trump on anything is a Fox News Hound.

 

[danielpalos]

We've been through this before, but that's not what 'judicial power' means. He has no 'judicial power' in that sense. He doesn't wave a magic gavel over his head, and scream "By the power of SCOTUS, I have the power!!" and transform into his robes.

As judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts

 

[danielpalos]

Which is why the term has come to mean so little recently. Perhaps they could bring it more up-to-date once this sham is over.

I am not sure what you mean; the House has oversight authority. There is no executive privilege from oversight.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I am not sure what you mean; the House has oversight authority. There is no executive privilege from oversight.

Nor did I claim there was. However, as we know, the Executive Branch may have disputes with the Legislative Branch and if there is no agreement they are settled by the Courts. That makes these Articles of Impeachment rather silly, and clearly political.

 

[Marine Electric]

I don't listen to Hannity, so you are wrong. Jesus, it is YOU GUYS who are so brainwashed about everything that they think anyone who defends Trump on anything is a Fox News Hound.

And I love how "you guys" repeat verbatim the ridiculous lies and misinformation made-up from thin-air by sean hannity yet claim you dont listen or watch his show.

All Trump-asslickers are cowards.

:2wave:

 

[NeverTrump]

Yes it will be interesting to most people but probably not you as impartiality comes from the D or R not from reality and the individual. Anyone that isn't a hero of anti left policies has no understanding of the Constitution and Foundation upon which this country was built. I have no idea why such hatred for Trump or even the rule of law but you are a prime example of the problems facing this country today, jealousy, class envy, politics of personal destruction and anyone that doesn't see everything your way has to be destroyed.

This witch hunt and every other one enacted since November 2016 have shown the Democratic Party of today being run by radicals with their agenda being nothing more than politics of personal destruction along with arrogance as they refuse to admit being wrong. The Party of Pelosi, Schiff, Warren, Sanders, Biden want you continually dependent of the federal bureaucrats and will stop at nothing to maintain power. You will continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results just like now it is anti Roberts forgetting that Roberts gave you ACA

You just said liberals can't understand the constitution, yet you all voted for a guy who has never read and who has aides who say he doesn't understand it at all. Is Trump a liberal? Does he hate himself?

Trump Complained That The Constitution Is Too Hard To Read


Also...who on the right are experts in the constitution, according to you? I would love to find out who your heroes are and if in fact they committed any crimes.

 

[Marine Electric]

Good post, Thanks
I may be wrong but i feel that there was also a sense of honor involved in the founder'ts words and to be impeached would, like Nancy Pelosi obviously hopes, be an historical stain on anyone who abused the position and was so tarred.

But when the poorly educated rookies recently entered Congress they, along with their supporters, began demanding 'impeachment' before the Trump Presidency even began. The word lost its impact. much like what happened to 'racist' and 'fascist'.

Given that 'honor' is no longer a serious personal concern among too many politicians perhaps the impeachment process should just be abandoned and any wrongdoing would go straight to the courts. However there might be a day in the future where the courts become as politicized as the House is today, and those attempts are being made today.

It seems a lot depends on personal honor and once that disappears the country will certainly be more difficult to govern for another 245 years.

Trump has been openly committing crimes unbefitting a president since the campaign. Early calling for - and Trumps ultimate impeachment weren't motivated by political partisanship, but rather, dictated by our constitution and the rule of law.

TRUTH.

:2wave:

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Trump has been openly committing crimes unbefitting a president since the campaign. Early calling for - and Trumps ultimate impeachment weren't motivated by political partisanship, but rather, dictated by our constitution and the rule of law.

TRUTH.

:2wave:

We'll see.

 

[Moderate Right]

And I love how "you guys" repeat verbatim the ridiculous lies and misinformation made-up from thin-air by sean hannity yet claim you dont listen or watch his show.

All Trump-asslickers are cowards.

:2wave:

I don't watch the show. I don't watch Fox. I think Hannity is a far right wing idiot.

 

[NWRatCon]

...
I may be wrong

. That's a pretty good bet....

but i feel that there was also a sense of honor involved in the founder'ts words and to be impeached would, like Nancy Pelosi obviously hopes, be an historical stain on anyone who abused the position and was so tarred.

Yup, and is.

But when the poorly educated rookies recently entered Congress they, along with their supporters, began demanding 'impeachment' before the Trump Presidency even began.

and then you veer of into nonsense again... Those "rookies" didn't get elected until Trump had been in office two years. When you start trying to disparage people, you ought to at least try to... Oh nevermind. I know you'll never try.

Given that 'honor' is no longer a serious personal concern...

Let me ask seriously... Do you really think that Trump has any sense of honor? Is that really the criteria you want to hang your hat on?

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I don't watch the show. I don't watch Fox. I think Hannity is a far right wing idiot.

Self censorship works for many these days, and in fact many on the left are trying to censor others as well. They feel diversity can be dangerous.