The duty of presiding over presidential impeachment is literally the only job the Constitution gives the Chief Justice. Article III doesn't even mention a Chief Justice.https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1223014910738739200 …
-
-
That’s exactly what the subtext was—the question itself was rhetorical. She’s saying, “Dammit, can’t you do something here? This is an outrage.” Which, yes, diminishes respect for the Court, the Senate and the Constitution. She’s trying to *goad* him.
-
I don't read it that way. I think it is the mockery of a trial you will have if you refuse to hear witnesses has real consequences for the legitimacy of our government, and not just the Senate, but also the Supreme Court, given the presence of the Chief Justice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Odd way to phrase it if you're asking about discretion.
-
She obviously wasn't talking to Roberts, she was grandstanding for Iowa caucusgoers.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.