son of witless

[quote=slatten49]

" Nor you, me, with your unbridled and unwarranted arrogance."

Thank you for the compliment.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Well, the context of it is well-deserved

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Welcome to our club of us who have unbridled and unwarranted arrogance. You're in good company.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Admittedly, it would appear to be large club.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

(Tuck, bring your post up by hitting 'show quote' and you'll get my answers to each of your questions)

>>>Again...possibly, but I doubt that happen either. IMO, the only possible way they would convict Trump is if McConnell v**es for conviction. That would likely free up an unknown number of GOP senators to join him.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

It's over. There is no basis for an Impeachment. There is no evidence in the articles sent by the House to the Senate. Why would Roberts want to participate in this? Trump is a private citizen. You cannot impeach a private citizen. If Roberts won't touch it, how can they have a trial without it being unconstitutional?

Jlw Loc: Wisconsin

Yes, Leahy is going to preside, so it should be another circus! They might as well have had schifty preside. You just know that this is going to be another charade. You lefties must not think that there are not more important things to do instead of wasting time on Trump and also how much is this crap going to cost taxpayers?

son of witless

This is merely a show. A public relations exercise. Either it will work or it will flop. History has shown that the Impeaching party generally does worse than the party being Impeached.

President Joe Biden has to get his agenda up and running. Is the Impeachment a giant distraction slowing him down, or will it yield political points. So far, Democrats have not succeeded in cowering the Republicans in the shame of the Capitol r**t. That was their aim.

Republicans were to be so humiliated that anything and everything the Democrats proposed, Republicans were supposed to bend over and say, " thank you Sir, may I have another ? " President Biden cannot play the race card that worked so well for the Obama.

I think if I was Uncle Joe, I would tell my i***ts to cool it and forget the Impeachment. I think it hurts him in getting his policies in gear. However, there is far too much emotional investment in tarring and feathering the Evil Orange Man. The crazies must have their pound of flesh. Lets us see how much it costs them.

currahee506

We Americans are wasting our time and breath answering these depraved fools on the basis of the Constitution. They have been taught that it is a "living document," meaning that it is to be interpreted according to the "changes in culture and not its original intent." For these Marxist, even though they won't admit they are, their perception of the environment dictates the definitions of language and this means the definitions must fit the Marxist narrative."

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Currahee and others, for your consideration: The Father of the US Constitution, James Madison, wrote on any future originalists' view of the Constitution and is summarized by a quote from The Federalist Papers #14. (About halfway down into the final paragraph.)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed14.asp

"But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?"

This allows for a degree of flexibility in the US Constitution.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

However, that is not law.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Good mornin', Manning5: From a previous post on this thread...

University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, a leading constitutional scholar, has also been making the case that the chief justice is the best choice and one authorized by the Constitution.

"The question should be whether the impeached officer was president at the time of impeachment. Here, he was, so Roberts presides," Vladeck wrote on Twitter.

"And if it seems odd to you that the Constitution doesn't speak to this scenario, here's a better one: Who presides over the trial if the *Vice President* is impeached?" he continued. "IF NOTHING ELSE, IT'S AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW AMBIGUOUS SO MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION IS (and always has been)."

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

(It all seems well-spelled out in the Constitution in my view. Who cares in this situation about who would preside if the Vice-President were to be impeached. It could probably be any of several people; Roberts, an Associate Justice, The Senate Pro-Tem, a DC Circuit Judge, or even Judy Sheindlin. In THIS case, the Constitution CLEARLY states the Chief Justice presides, period. Nothing ambiguous about it.

What is the purpose of impeachment? According to the Constitution and as explained in the Federalist Papers?
To remove from office. Trump is out of office. The Senate CANNOT try private citizens. If they wanted to impeach Trump they should have done so before he left office. This is nothing more than the vindictiveness of the Left.)

Dem Senator, Not Roberts, To Preside Over Trump’s Impeachment Trial
By Hank Berrien
•
Jan 25, 2021 DailyWire.com
•
FacebookTwitterMail
John Roberts
Senate Television via Getty Images
Unlike the first Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, over which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided, the second Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to commence on February 8, will not see Roberts presiding — Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who is the Senate President Pro Tempore, will preside.

On Monday, Leahy, who v**ed to impeach Trump in the first impeachment trial, said he would administer “impartial justice,” according to The Hill.

Leahy released a statement in which he said:

The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.
(Leahy would need to recuse himself from presiding because he already v**ed once to impeach Trump in the first trial. This is why Roberts will not preside because the issue is sure to come to the SCOTUS and would present a conflict of interest if Roberts was to preside over the second impeachment.)

I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career. When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. (Really? If that is so then he should recuse himself. That, however, is a moot point because the Senate cannot try private citizens. Constitutionally, there can be no impeachment trial.)

Longtime Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, criticized the idea of Leahy presiding, saying:

The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president but that’s not what we’re doing. To me that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters. I just think it looks very petty and vindictive and I understand there are a lot of people who are mad but the process itself already looks like a railroad job.

Cornyn added that a Democrat presiding “really undermines the legitimacy.”

Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul echoed, “If the chief justice doesn’t preside, I think it’s an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it’s not really constitutional to impeach someone who’s not president.”

Leahy bristled, “I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours. … I’m not presenting the evidence. I’m making sure that procedures are followed. I don’t think there’s any senator who over the 40-plus years I’ve been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in v****g on procedure.”

Last week, the day before Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States, Politico reported, “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says.”

In the midst of Trump’s first impeachment trial, New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer asked Roberts if he would break a tie v**e if there were one. Roberts answered, “If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

Navigator

[quote=slatten49]

Chief Justice Roberts, not happy to have to have presided over the first absurdity, correctly reasoned that "The U.S. Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "shall preside" over trials of the President of the United States.." lets him off the hook in an impeachment of someone who is not the POTUS. Leahy will preside over the latest sham.