If Roberts decided against presiding in this trial & told that to Democrats in private, it was cowardly of him not to put that on the record. It's a historic precedent on the one explicit constitutional duty of his office:https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chief-justice-roberts-a-back-channel-no-on-presiding-over-trump-impeachment-reboot/ …
That’s exactly why he couldn’t put it “on the record.” He has no judicial power, as a single justice, to set “historic precedent” on a legal question
-
-
If the trial is defective because he didn’t preside, that’s a legal question to be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court, not by Roberts, and only as part of a “case or controversy” giving the courts jurisdiction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the Senate, or Trump, is aggrieved by Roberts not presiding, they can presumably bring a mandamus action against him to compel him. And he would definitely not be authorized to issue a ruling in that action. His personal opinion is irrelevant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.