Unfortunately, the democrats will cry foul if the man does anything they don't like...that's what highly partisan politicians do in a highly charged partisan atmosphere of their own making. No matter what he does...when all of this is revealed as partisan garbage...the left is going to cry foul.
1
@Tom - The same can be said about Republicans. That's all Mitch McConnell has been saying for weeks - that the impeachment of Trump by the House was partisan.
5
I think by the end of this, it will prove to be more perilous to the democrats in the House that put this farce in play.
Maybe no more than the Obamacare decision.
1
What reputation?
Oh, you mean the reputation for damaging democracy by allowing unlimited money in politics, some of it corrupt foreign cash funneled through shell companies, ala Lev Parnas?
Or maybe the reputation for neutering the Voting Rights Act and refusing to see blantant gerrymandering and other voter suppression, calling it "gobbledygook".
Presiding over a Soviet style Senate trial without witnesses and a preordained judgement can only enhance the reputation of Chief Justice Roberts as destroyer of democracy.
4
Roberts may surprise everyone and take charge of Mitch McConnell's mess. He's not going to look like a fool here. Republicans wanted 'strict Constitutionalists' on the court. Roberts may deliver that. Republicans: Be care what you wish for.
2
The banner at the top of the page takes up too much screen space and is a distraction. This on seems to disappear as one scrolls down the page, however, so good job. Make them all like this.
The idea that the justices are 'non partisan' is a joke that is belied by every 5-4 decision they make.
It wasn't true in 1936 when right wing justices blocked the New Deal and it isn't true today.
Its time to reform the court and make up for all the right wing court packing that has gone on since Bush Vs Gore, both at the Supreme level and under it.
Remove the legislative filibuster, another minority rule piece of nonsense that isn't even in the Constitution (and nowhere does that document require some sacred number such as 9 for the SC) and liberate this country to actually practice democracy.
The best evaluation of Chief Justice Roberts can be found in an adaptation of a statement of Michael Corleone in The Godfather:
The idea that Roberts is an impartial judge is an insult to my intelligence.
The Walter Cronkite Republican notes the Chief Justice will have his work cut out for him given he presided and joined the Justices that have allowed artificial persons (corporations) to manipulate and limit the choices of voting citizens.
1
It should not be "perilous" to tell the truth and demand impartial justice.
Small, mean, dishonest, violent. It appears that to the "tribe" with their team sports approach to what should be but is not honesty, there is nothing worse than a democrat. Not a torturer, murderer, pedophile, rapist, planetary destroyer and exploiter, looter, or promoter of violence against their opponents.
Making America as small and mean as they possibly can.
Vote for any and all Democrats in November. We need reality and truth back.
5
Fellow commenters: Roberts is not in a position to make any demands about witnesses or new evidence. I thought this article made that clear. He will administer the oath, then sit back and watch the Senate conduct its business. Don't look to him as a way to ensure a "fair and impartial" trial.
4
@John I disagree. Do you really think he wants his reputation soiled by the likes of Mitch McConnell?
It is doubtful that the Founders chose to put the Chief Justice in charge in a factional dispute just to sit and watch or read his iPhone.
4
There are no perfect players nor sides participating in the historic moment. Like The US itself, all are flawed yet strong. And all are certain of the righteousness of their beliefs and that the greatness of our democracy will be asserted by the trials outcome. Chief Justice Roberts is no exception, but only from from him could the slightest whiff of partiality set off a judicial and constitutional crisis of a dangerous magnitude. Ceremonial or not, his task is great and not having ever disgraced the symbol of his robe begs our confidence and respect during the upcoming trial, one for which respect seems to have already proven to be a cheap commodity.
Justice Roberts is a Bush appointee but he is not a politician. He has a deep respect for our institutions and although he has a conservative interpretation of the constitution he has shown in the past he's willing to rule in favor of law over politics.
1
The Chief Justice should remind senators that they are swearing impartiality just before he administers their oath and say right then that he will not allow partisan grandstanding by members of either side. He should enforce that ban immediately and throughout. He should respond to any breach of that protocol forcefully, both for the present and for any future trial of this type.
2
Watch for behind-the-back crossed fingers by some of the Senators. Some members of this debating society have had major issues with their allegiance to the Constitution in the past several years. Do not expect that position to change after the Chief Justice administers the impeachment trial oath.
2
Because of McConnell and Lindsey Grahams statements that they are not "impartial" and they would vote to overrule the impeachment ruling against Trump, they should not be allowed to vote in the impeachment hearing in the Senate.
If a juror in a court trial (before the trial even began), stated that they were voting a not guilty vote, regardless of the evidence provided, they would dismissed from the jury pool. McConnell and Graham should be dismissed from the impeachment trial. Otherwise, the entire trial is a farce.
4
So what power does the presiding judge have exactly? Seems like our founders punted on this one.
1
It is a presiding officer, not a judge. He is there as the leader of the third co-equal Branch, not as a trial judge. The senators are not jurors, no matter how many commenters feel otherwise. Impeachment is really a non-jury hearing where you have a panel of 100 judges. The Founders knew exactly what a presiding officer was and it is not a president. They had years of experience with presiding officers through the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation. No one with any knowledge of history would say those years showed a firm hand guiding the legislators. Yet they used that exact term to describe this role. You see it every day in the Senate sessions where a Senator does her or his time in the rotation. The person just keeps the process moving, does not decide anything except call for motions and recording votes.
This is not only the trial of Donald Trump but even more important it's the trial of the Republican Party and the Supreme Court. If Roberts comes out openly ignoring evidence on live TV the reputation of the Court will be destroyed and he will be responsible. I hope he remembers his oath.
1
The Supreme Court's reputation already is dangling by the thinnest of threads as it veers ever closer toward legitamizing kleptocracy and fascism.
1
The die is cast:
The Robert's Court will descend into reactionary and regressive decisions, increasing the imperial powers of the executive branch, eviscerate the regulatory power of the Congress and establish individual nullification of laws based upon "religious" belief.
It's ignominy is merely at its commencement.
Nothing Mr. Roberts does during the impeachment proceedings will change that.
What would be perilous to his reputation would be if he put politics above the Constitution.
It's up to the Chief Justice to do the judicial work that the lower courts had either shunned or failed to act upon. For Republicans in Congress to allow Trump to disregard requests for documents and all but tell witnesses to either mislead or ignore subpoenas and then scoff at the "lack of evidence" and then side with the accused has made any hope of their being justice makes this nearly as guilty as he is.
"No one is above the law" has become a joke line not an American tenet of law.
Why can't Chief Justice Roberts just follow the law?
With a lifetime appointment, he has nothing to lose through impartiality, which is expected, anyway.
1
History is watching, Mr. Chief Justice. Plan for the long view however uncomfortable it might be at the moment. Your legacy and the legacy of the SCOTUS depends on it.
"Professor Bobbitt said. “You take the chief, with the majesty of his office, ..."
The learned professor fails to mention that until the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, had been in office for some years there was little or no Majesty associated with that office, and not much for SCOTUS as a whole. Until Marbury v. Madison the Court could not declare anything Un-Constitutuonal. Marshall more or less created the standards of demeanor, collegiality, and the striving toward unanimity that are the modern Court at its best. His is the standard that Roberts and every other C. J. since has strived to match.
The Founders may have hoped for such Majesty sometime, but what they did was create an opportunity for a Marshall to be that great.
1
Be sure to contact Mitch McConnell's office and implore him to conduct the trial in a non-partisan way, including all the pertinent testimony and evidence. Let him know that although you may not vote in Kentucky, you do vote and this trial will influence that vote. Contact your Senators as well. Just Google their names and "email" and you will get to the contact form for them. It's that simple.
1
Judges who preside over 'trials' in which pertinent testimony and evidence is excluded, and many of the jurors have declared they have made up their minds beforehand, should themselves be impeached. What the GOP under McConnell proposes to do in the Senate is not a trial, it is a political soap opera, and, should Chief Justice Roberts go along with these machinations, he will live in history as the unscrupulous pawn in service to a con man.
1
Trump's not-so-secret-anti-impeachment weapon:
Chief Justice John Roberts
In the Supreme Court voting rights decisions below, Roberts makes clear he wants radical conservatism to triumph over democracy in America:
a. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The 1st Amendment prohibits government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations;
b. Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is unconstitutional;
c. Michigan State A Philip Randolph Institute v. Ruth Johnson (2016). Eliminating the straight ticket voting ballot option does not intentionally discriminate against African-Americans;
d. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018). Ohio's voter registration purge methodology is constitutional -
(Note: Wisconsin and Georgia recently purged thousands of voters, (Georgia > 100,000), Wisconsin > 230,000), in a partisan scam targeting Democratic Party majority districts under the cover of this Supreme Court decision);
e. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). "Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." (CJ Roberts writing for the 5-4 majority)
Taken together, these cases can move the voting needle one or two percentage points in Trump's favor.
The Chief Justice plays a key role, not only in the impeachment process, but also in the lawsuits filed by the parties which come before the Supreme Court on appeal.
Cheers
I don't understand how he could preside over a trial where the majority of the Jury support the Defendant without any witnesses. Yes, it will be a huge black stain on the Supreme Court.
Another NYT attempt to walk a narrow line down the middle and instead err in being on the right. If Roberts follows common sense and decency, and attempts to implement a real trial and to uncover the facts clearly, the main “damage” to his reputation will be with the GOP and good old Mitch who says impeachment is a political popularity event, not an attempt to clear the air.
In short, Roberts can be judicial or he can be a pawn.
2
Its already been damaged. What difference does it make now?
Perilous for John Roberts? What are they going to do, fire him?
2
To willfully unlearn about Trump now has dystopian consequences.
Coddled toddler grows into serious business failure, now fatally addled by klieg lights, toddle-doddles us close to the precipice, increasingly close ... Rigging 2020 elections through foreign extortion of an ally at war. Followed by emperiling american lives/limbs/treasure in a big new war in the Middle East with zero congressional oversight.
It’ll be too late for the coddlers to grasp for the precipice if we all - Justice Roberts included - are hitched to the toddler careening into the abyss. Over the top, perhaps? Or just okay by the rapture seekers’ quest for end of days, while the heathens crisp like bacon?
1
I took a day off because I want to live and watch history in the making. Nancy is our freedom fighter for democracy and the pathetic GOP are showing to the world that they care for nothing but their bank accounts.
Justice Roberts will follow the example of Nancy and do what is right for this country. Nancy and all of us will follow democracy to the very end and we will win against this dictator who is nothing more than a con man and a draft dodger.
Trump's massive cover up has been exposed , Pence, Moscow Mitch will all be seen forever as traitors. IMPEACHMENT for TRUMP will always be beside his name for all eternity. Justice Roberts will display to the American people, why he is on the Supreme court and why Rudi, Trump can not even carry his law books.
Justice Roberts' reputation is going to be soiled as a result of this trial. Every Trump centered spectacle has muddied everyone involved.
No it won’t.
As several people have rightly pointed out, the Constitution itself is on trial during the impeachment process. And since the Constitution is almost the entire raison d'etre for the existence of SCOTUS, the Chief Justice is going to be in the spotlight from the get-go of the trial, starting with the swearing in of the Senators to be fair and impartial jurors. Many, including the Majority Leader, have already given the lie to that and those folks will have fingers crossed behind their backs and their noses in virtual proximity to the President's posterior when they take the oath. Good luck, John Roberts!
It is a vital and fundamental aspect of our democracy. Americans must have trust and faith in their government. That is especially true for the Judicial Branch which must mediate between lived life, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the law and the Constitution, which must preserve the Constitutional balance between the coequal Legislative and Executive Branches. There are few enough rules about impeachment as it is. For those few rules that do exist, Roberts must exercise a rigorous and proper enforcement. One such rule is impartiality and the oath that every senator must take. If he does otherwise, he will do lasting damage to the trust and faith of Americans in the Supreme Court.
3
I dont think this will have any effect on his reputation.
I mean Clarence Thomas got away with sexual harassment and that didn't hurt his reputation.
11
@akeptwatchoverthewatcher As with any Supreme Court Justice, Mr Roberts' "reputation" is irrelevant, because he occupies a lifetime appointment and not subject to any election.
1
Roberts talks about impartiality, but his court certainly doesn't walk that walk. His court has effectively approved gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the wealthy buying politicians. All goals of the Republican party and all decidedly anti democracy.
14
Of all of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, Roberts is the only one that I would expect to use his role appropriately. I don't see him damaging the country to "just go along". He has a strong sense of history and high expectations for his role in the future of the country.
1
What, in your estimation, would be “damaging the country”?
John Roberts is the CHIEF JUSTICE of the U.S Supreme Court. I repeat, the CHIEF JUSTICE of the U.S Supreme Court - the highest court in the land. If he, of all people, is unable to preside over the impeachment trial in a fair, impartial and non-partisan manner then who on this planet is qualified to do so? If it turns out that he does anything but render impartial justice then it will be a very sad day for ALL Americans.
4
So, if he goes against what you want, it won't be fair or impartial, is that what you are saying?
1
The reputation of the Chief Justice has already been made as the man who has presided over more violations of starie decisis than any court in history. He is not merely a partisan hack but someone who is comfortable undermining law based on personal opinion rather than constitutional fundamentals. As such he is a hero of the revolutionary right and an enemy of the historical tradition of law.
To maintain his insider status with his extremist coalition all he has to do is sit quietly and let McConnell take the blame and applause for the kangaroo court that he intends to produce. That will brand him with more conservative credentials than he needs and it will also and forever tie the court to a partisan contempt for the constitutional norms required for its survival. But there is a chance that he does not want to go down in history as its greatest legal fool.
If the defense of separation of powers still means anything to him he can build an entire judicial process around the Senates required oath of impartiality. As presiding judge he can demand that objective norms of justice be observed and if they are not he can step down in protest until they are. In other words he can stop the trial in its tracks until rules acceptable to him are followed. He can defend the impartiality of this court as a reaction to its non unanimous agreement on the rules for the trial.
But again, that would require a respect for justice that his court record shows is in short supply.
5
How can John Roberts even allow Mitch McConnell as a juror in this impeachment trial after McConnell so astoundingly proclaimed:
"I am not an impartial juror,
"I am not impartial about this at all",
"There is no way the president will be impeached"
“Everything I do during this, I will be coordinating with (the defendant's) White House counsel.”
"There is no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”
So how many times does McConnell have to scream this to the whole world?
First order of business for this trial must be Justice John Roberts dismissing McConnell for either refusing to take the oath to be an impartial juror or for lying under oath when he swears to be an "impartial" juror.
9
Roberts is a political hack who serves the wealthy. I don't know how that reputation could be damaged by him presiding over mock trial in the corrupt and immoral senate. It seems par for the course.
3
Justice Roberts should demand that the Senate trial permit witnesses.
Roberts’ own legacy and the public’s view of SCOTUS will be damaged if Justice Roberts presides over a sham trial.
5
After the disastrous Roberts Citizens United decision that has corrupted the electoral process, we will have another opportunity to find out where John Roberts really stands on Constitutional law.
He will either insist on a fair impeachment trial with witnesses and evidence or he will continue to aid in the destruction of our democracy.
8
Except the First Amendment specifically protects the rights of the Press as well as the free expression of speech.
The Founders itemized these two rights because they believed they were basic to a free society.
The Founders did not grant corporations, legislatively created special entities with limited purposes, the same rights to speech nor a status equivalent to the Press. Despite Mitt Romney’s foolish statement to the contrary, corporations are not people. Likewise, the Supreme Court simply got it wrong in deciding “Citizens United”.
2
Citizens United reaffirmed the First Amendment.
Campaign finance laws that ban political movies, books, etc near elections is just wrong.
The court recognized that corporation Citizens United has the same rights as corporation NY Times when it come to expression regarding politics.
Roberts' reputation is already made: a partisan ideologue and not a learned, unbiased judge.
5
Mitch McConnell already stated he will not be impartial so will he skip the oath?
4
McConnell will take a separate oath affirming his allegiance to the Trump, Putin, and GOP Trinity.
Do these guys even care about "reputation" or their legacy anymore? Look how low all the Republican representatives have gone, why will conservative judges be any different? What was unthinkable is now normalized.
5
Roberts is a Republican, they don't care about reputation or legacy. Expect him to put his foot on the scale in favor of Trump.
3
Good god I hope the chief justice has excellent security around him. With Putin on the loose we should all fear for officials who actually care about our Republic. Can you imagine who Trump would elevate to the chief justice position given the chance?
2
Jared!
Quite honestly the Roberts Court uses “reason and decorum” to advance a “partisan” agenda, just minus the posturing and histrionics of the Senate...no difference in substance, only in presentstion.
5
I don't see why it's so perilous he is a very intelligent man. Just fulfill your obligations under the Constitution Simple.
2
To ensure a fair trail to the American people and to Trump.
Anything else will only divided the Country.
2
We do not have a democracy. We have a farce of a democracy. People enjoy farces. They always did. Shakespeare wrote very good ones. So did Groucho Marx.
They would have both have fun watching this “trial.”
Judge Roberts already showed his true colors early on in the Bush v. Gore farce. This type of journalism ignores the truth and cheerleads their farce. Few commenters here call it what it is. Others (most likely like me) see their comments only in their saved sent emails. A pity.
1
Roberts was not on the Court when Bush v Gore was decided.
Justice Roberts is well aware that the Supreme Court already is being viewed as being partisan given their numerous pro-business and anti-worker rulings. If Roberts follows the Constitution and runs the trial even handed then he will have ably performed his responsibilities. This of course assumes that he will demand that all documents and witnesses relevant to the articles of impeachment be allowed and considered by the senators. It would be great if Justice Robert's were to administer the oath of impartiality to each senator individually and have it televised.
2
The SCOTUS is already "damaged". Neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh deserve to be there, and Roberts (with Alito) "gifted" us with Citizens United, which ushered in the huge wave of dark money into our election process.
Since Moscow Mitch is making the rules of this sham "trial", it will be historic: the first faux impeachment trial conducted by a corrupt Senate "leader" and a "verdict" rendered by a group of senators openly violating the oaths they will take for this atrocity.
Roberts will be there for show only. This is a disgrace, and it will mark the end of the rule of law in this country.
Fascism is here.
8
Let’s not forget what DJT said in 2006: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.”
Those who support him just want this witch hunt over.
We will learn whether Roberts also thinks their savior is above the law.
3
@Cate Typo - 2016
Roberts is much more sober than Reinquist who was likely swimming in a "placid" mental space during his tenure. I expect Roberts to act somewhere between the previous sitting impeachment justices.
Or maybe Robert's could chose not to be partisan for a change.
Not likely, I know. His notoriety was made with "Citizen's United". We need term limits in the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile we are suffering ever more under the "Best Democracy Money Can Buy".
2
Roberts can rest easy knowing that he is not and cannot be responsible for the romper room that has, by action and words, been promised by Senate Republicans, and to a lesser extent, Democrats. He will look, relatively speaking, like the adult.
That said, the constitutionality of the proceedings will be stamped with the name, John Roberts. Being concerned about the reputation of the court, as he rightfully is, this will expose him to the risk of being perceived as guilty by passivity.
Of course, most Americans don't even know who John Roberts is, and, if they make any assumption, assume that the Supreme Court, like the most of the rest of Washington, is in the service of the powers that be. Roberts appears to be mostly concerned with the elite opinion that is still swayable.
Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, "justice is not inevitable."
But the Majority Leader and his party have not expressed an interest in justice. They promised partisan partiality.
If the Chief allows the Senate to paper over the allegations against the president -- with alarming evidence growing daily -- he will be remembered throughout history for his actions in this case.
5
Here is a great opportunity for most of the Republican Senators to decide whether they wish to be elected again or not.
Chief Justice Roberts has a specific job: to make sure the letter of the law is upheld and that the jurors behave appropriately and do their sworn duty as impartial jurors. If in the past the role has been mostly ceremonial, that does not mean that it must be this time. In today's highly partisan, divisive and incendiary Republican party who will rip the guts out of the law to keep their revered leader in power, there should be stern rebukes to the kind of behavior Mitch McConnell and Linsey Graham have displayed. Frankly if I were Roberts I would dismiss those men from sitting on the jury. In any other court of law a person with such awful biases would be removed from the jury pool before the trial even began. That would be a show of courage. That would be upholding the law. But I am afraid, truly afraid, that he would not do such an extreme act. Our constitution is under attack and staying "ceremonial" and silent will reshape the intent of the Constitution forever. And that is a great, great tragedy.
2
The only letter of the law applicable is the collective will of the Senate has complete authority over the proceedings except for the vote numbers required for a guilty verdict.
His reputation actually doesn’t have much further to fall.
1
Exactly how perilous can this process be for someone who holds a lifetime job appointment and already knows how this is all going to end? Oh, sure, there'll be a nice little show trial for the People and the Press, maybe even a legal kerfuffle along the way, but if you think this is the end of Trump's and the GOP's vise-like grip on the federal government, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Remember our lord and savior Mueller? How'd that go?
1
Does SCOTUS actually have any integrity to protect anyway? I believe it lost all credibility when it selected our president in 2000 and then opened the floodgates to dark money in our electoral system with the new members he installed. And judging by the unfit characters it has acquired under Lord Voldemort's rule, there isn't much left to defend. I expect an entirely unfair trail without required witness testimony and a complete exoneration of the Dark Lord to follow. What's worse is that we will continue to sit quietly by as our sad system of government continues it's rapid downward spiral. But at least his cult followers will be pleased.
2
Justice Roberts has no problem eviscerating the will of the Congress when its legislative prerogatives are at odds with the Republican political agenda (campaign finance, voting rights, labor law, and beyond).
But as the judge in a trial of presidential misconduct, where the Senate majority leader is working hand-in-glove with the defendant to suppress evidence, he’ll be as hands-off as possible.
Incredible.
1
I was under the illusion that the SCOTUS is impartial in dispensing justice. Was not aware that there is Democrat justice or Republican justice. I always thought the law was the law and justice is justice.
2
Presiding over the Senate trial makes Roberts the leader of the Senate (for the trial only) and McConnell just one senator among many.
That's a good thing.
I have no faith in chief justice Roberts.
1
Reputation? Since when did these Republicans care about reputation? William Barr, the ‘conservative’ SCOTUS justices in Bush v Gore, Mitch McConnell ...? When?
That Image died with Citizens United.
5
Lev Parnas' revelations surely strengthens the evidence that Giuliani was working personally for the President in trying to get dirt on Biden.
3
Oh, please! Like the Supreme Court has any “reputation” left after the Bush elevation, the poor quality of Republican appointed “Judges” and the usurpation of President Obama's last appointment.
8
Do your duty, Senators. You've taken a sacred oath to protect our country. Do your duty.
If this is a sham trial, our country will never be the same and I'm afraid two-thirds of the country knows this.
We're skirting disaster by allowing the GOP to further muddy the waters and seek a speedy and potentially obscenely unfair cover-up.
I put my faith in the integrity of our impartial Senators and in the transparency of a public trial.
We know the truth. Now punishment must be meted out.
2
Surely if the Founding Fathers gave the Chief Justice the role of presiding in a Senate impeachment trial, they intended more than he simply administer an oath to Senators. This matter has been little addressed or litigated and Roberts isn't likely to go far afield in handling his role. On the other hand, one doesn't get to be a member of the Supreme Court without having some degree of ambition and ego. And smarts, a lot of smarts. Roberts might surprise us all in finding a way to make this an authentic trial without being seen as partisan.
3
The Chief Justice does *not* act as a trial judge, and the Senators do *not* act as common law jurors. In the case of an impeachment, the Senate is the courtroom and the Senators, unlike trial court jurors, are the judges of both the facts *and* the law. This principle is well settled. In fact it was in the Clinton case, that it was expressly pointed out that it was wrong to refer to the Senators as jurors, and that ruling was made at the request Clinton’s defense team. And quite frankly the function of the Chief Justice is to do little more than observe, his role being largely symbolic...
3
Roberts throws the occasional bone to Democrats on lesser important cases, to uphold the illusion of impartiality.
But make no mistake: when it matters, Roberts rules conservative, even if it requires logic so far fetched no amount of sophistry can dress it up (e.g. Citizens United).
And the impeachment process matters.
6
Confidence on SCOTUS nonpartisanship has already reached a new low. How Chief Justice Roberts handles this impeachment is going to be closely watched.
It is not a win-win spot for him.
1
Perilous? Only if he makes it so by taking a stand for "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." He can use his pulpit as presiding judge, backroom negotiations with McConnell, or his tie breaking vote on procedure to ensure all the evidence is turned over and all witnesses with first-hand knowledge are required to testify.
If he finds the spine to truly defend and uphold the Constitution's foundational structure of three coequal branches he will have salvaged a place of honor in history. The peril: eternal damnation from the Trump cultists that currently dominate his Party. Your choice, Mr. Chief Justice.
4
“ 'He has to deal with an unruly group of justices, and there are serious divisions,' Professor Epps said. 'But the court, divided as it is, is just never as partisan as the United States Senate.' "
That is a bold assertion, considering that senators do their business almost exclusively in public, in particular partisan fighting, while the SCOTUS justices do their business behind closed doors and do not air their dirty laundry in public.
1
John Roberts has presided over the most partisan and political court in decades; he does nothing about reining in the conflicts of interests exhibited by Clarence Thomas, and he has allowed the Court to be used. His legacy as Chief Justice is already ruined.
1
The world will be closely watching these proceedings, and, if they go as most believe, that being a total political sham concocted by Senator McConnell and the White House, America’s standing in the world will be even further diminished. As it is, it will likely take decades to restore US credibility. An Impeachment trial by a kangaroo Senate court could well be the final nail in the coffin casting the world’s perception of the United States of America as being little more than a banana republic, for generations.
3
To Chief Justice Roberts - As an originalist and textualist, you regularly follow the "original" meaning of the constitution, as understood by the founders. So here's the questions, what did the founders consider a "trial" to be, what inherent powers did the one presiding over a trial have (i.e., a judge), and did judges during the founding of our country allow either party to exclude all witness testimony as a matter of procedure? Or on the contrary, isn't the taking of evidence and cross-examination the bedrock of Anglo-American jurisprudence? Isn't this what the founders meant when they put a "trial" provision in our constitution and set the chief justice up as the one presiding over that trial? Or, did the founders not intend a "trial" but a mere political vote, with you to being a mere figurehead? If you interpret the constitution as an originalist, you will not countenance the GOP forcing you into being the presiding Kangaroo figurehead. You are given expressed powers by the constitution, and the constitution singles you out personally to preside over a trial. So do so like the founders intended you to, Mr. CHIEF Justice.
4
This is a man who overturned the VRA, and enabled Citizens United. Your measured, thoughtful journalism is talking about an ideal SCOTUS CJ who bears little resemblance to this partisan, expedient, twister.
He is no institutionalist. That is simply a charming pipe dream of centrists and moderates.
4
Make no mistake : this trial is not just about Trump or the Chief Justice. It is about our entire Senate. What to do if there are no witnesses? No papers? No emails? And the Senate acquits on the basis of nothing? Now we are back to raw democracy.
Would, will the American populace have the stomach to revolt? To even protest?
Will real justice prevail and criminal, anti-Constitutional, unethical behavior from elected officials be punished or will the public shrug and think, “oh, we’re only months from a Presidential vote.”?
3
If I entered the courthouse for jury duty and immediately shouted out that every criminal is guilty period, I would not be allowed on any of the juries and would be walked out of the court-house. On the other hand, if I were an elected Senator, they would walk me to the front of the chambers. Senators do have their privilege!
3
When I was a boy, nearly 70 years ago, I thought the Supreme Court justices were the most honest, wisest people on earth.
If you ever needed someone who always told the truth and upheld the law and did what was right, it would be one of them.
What a dope I was, I'll admit it.
Some people still seem to think that way.
5
This is nonsense. Very unlikely that anything Roberts does will be noteworthy - he's in a role that's almost powerless. If you're hoping that the impeachment trial will somehow tar Roberts' reputation dream on.
1
None of the unpleasantness would exists if:
1) Robert Mueller’s report had not been distorted by the AG
2) Mueller presented the full and true conclusion of his investigation after the AG’s distortion
3) the gop on the hill did their constitutional duty
4) American people are more willing to spend time and mind in truth seeking
5) Justice Roberts believes in “no one is above the law” and prqctice accordingly
85
Chief Justice John Roberts would most likely adopt a similar – minimalist – approach as his former boss and predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who presided over Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999.
It would also be the wiser course, better for the Supreme Court and the country.
As there are 53 Republicans and only 47 Democrats in Senate, there is no higher court that could overturn a Senate judgement.
And any evidentiary ruling by the Chief Justice is subject to review by the Senate and can be overridden by a majority of senators.
Trump’s fate will be decided by his Senate allies. It remains to be seen whether there are going be 20 Republicans who will muster enough courage to convict him.
Roberts may just hope that he wouldn’t find himself in a situation in which his vote could break a tie if the Senate were to split 50-50 on certain issues.
2
I’m optimistic that Justice Roberts will do the right thing. I believe he could truthfully be bipartisan during this entire process.
1
Wait, how can the botched call and response be blamed on Obama? He was the one who corrected the Chief Justice and got things back on track.
Chief Justice Roberts should do the right thing in this case. Doing the right thing is not partisan.
3
As his predecessor did, I'm sure Roberts will do next to nothing and do it in extremely mediocre fashion.
Perhaps to express his own "whimsical" side, he could wear one of those ridiculous white wigs to prove he's not the only chief justice who's capable of making a complete fool of himself.
I don't know what Rehnquist was thinking, but those gold rings that he decided to add to his "regal robes" were childish and self serving.
9
@JayK Most humans at this level of power are puffed up with their own pride and hoist themselves high on their own petards. Its why I give the lot of them no credence at all.
1
@JayK
I was compelled to do a little light digging on Rehnquist's infamous "gold ringed" regal robe and found out that he actually had the robe appraised by Sothebys prior to "donating" it to the Smithsonian.
He was subsequently asked if he deducted the robe's value on his tax return and the court provided a stern "no comment", which some discerning people might interpret as a "yes".
Can you imagine what a traditional white wig might fetch on the open market if Roberts decides to wear one? Could be a cool million, easy. Or, what a dandy souvenir it might make one day for the Federalist Society!
I say he goes for it. We already know he's a stickler for Supreme Court traditional "formal wear", as he once famously ordered the solicitor general (Donald Verrilli) to wear the "morning coat" when he had the temerity to show up in court one time without it.
Do it, Judge! It will be awesome and very appropriate attire for the Kangaroo court that the GOP will insure that it devolves into. Besides that, it will hide that big bald spot, so less glare to deal with for the TV cameras.
1
"Signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court"? That boat already done sailed. Now, if former VP Biden had his wits about him, going into the lion's den could become a teachable and impeachable moment. Even if his son did something illegal in Ukraine, this is not the place for that to be addressed and not relevant to Trump's corruption; the Dems could drive that simple fact home. But Biden's challenge to that poor deluded man in Iowa a have push-up contest makes me doubt he could handle it with the cool head one would expect a future president to have.
7
Will he issue a gag order after potus insults the impeachment process or Roberts himself? And if as can be anticipated, t persists, will he find t in contempt?
9
There is a big difference between this Impeachment trial and the other two. Namely, this one deals with a President who, as evidence has shown, is credibly accused of committing acts of treason, bribery, and obstruction. This is no mere perjury trial, like Clinton's, or for disobeying Congressional directives, like Johnson's. This is far more serious. The fact that it is "marked by partisan warfare" has more to do with Mitch McConnell's outright unconstitutional refusal to honor his oath of office and oath of affirmation. Roberts has a much more important role here to uphold the constitution in the face of frankly treasonous behavior on behalf of the Republicans. I hope he takes it seriously because he will destroy what's left of the credibility of the Presidency, the Senate, and the Constitution, if he allows McConnell to get away with this. My hope is that he has more honor than that and will take an active, truly bipartisan role. Our Republic depends on it.
15
The court accepting to hear the argument that a Congressional Committee isn’t entitled to see Trump’s taxes on demand, despite it being constitutionally valid, has already damaged their credibility.
7
Justice Roberts is Chief Justice of the most powerful court in the world. He has lifetime tenure. The last thing he is thinking about is i his reputation. What he is thinking about is how to find Trump innocent without looking like the Party hack he is.
9
Sadly, I wouldn’t place too much hope in Roberts to support and defend the constitution.
This is a man who has ruled that “money is speech”.
Republicans believe that the constitution stands in the way of their plans for the future of the country.
11
Chief Justice Marshall made judicial review the primary power of the court. It’s not so stated, but he exercised his authority to make it so.
Because the role of the Chief Justice is so vague, Chief Justice Roberts could decide his role would be to ensure a level playing field making sure political ideology is fair and evenly balanced ... no one faction bullies the other.
2
The US Senate is so mindless, it doesn't know its credibility rests on nothing more than faith.
9
@Steve Bolger
Unfortunately, they just don’t care.
3
Bring back Civics to core HS studies. Maybe we wouldn't have to cram before the next impeachment.
13
Roberts knows better than most that impeachment is a political, not a judicial process. Likewise, the Senate trial is political. Proof of a crime is not required. The Founders knew they could not write in every kind of malfeasance, nor would a devious executive be prevented from obstructing even civil rules. A 2/3 majority can demand or prevent removal for any reason they choose (except for bribery of those senators and such).
Yet the Founders put the Chief Justice in charge, not the VP or the President Pro Tem, the other two Senate presiding officers. That was for implicit but clear reasons. If the Chief could not serve, presumably the role would default to the Senior Justice, per Court protocol.
Why? So that a justice-for-life not forever beholden to the current POTUS would preside, someone whose reputation and legacy would be fouled by any partisan misconduct in the role. In those days Hamilton and Burr dueled over much less. The Founders took personal honor to be a deadly serious matter. We will see how it works now in this trial
11
Someone not in the Senate serves as the presiding officer to allow all Senators to vote. A Presiding Officer cannot vote. Since the Senate is part of a co-equal Branch, and the House has presented its case, the only person that can preside is the leader of the uninvolved branch. The Chief Justice represents the entire judiciary, not the Supreme Court. Commenters keep referencing the Supreme Court. The SC has no involvement in this case.
1
@SpeakinForMyself: The US Supreme Court has been selected for theocratic sympathies.
1
Intriguing snippets of impeachment history, and good comments. I guess I’d also take issue with the purely ceremonial assignment for the Chief Justice; the Constitution does say he will, preside. And though the Senate may make its own rules for legislative purposes, when it comes to the special Impeachment process, can those rules, overrule the Constitutional mandate that the Chief Justice, presides?
I do think the Chief Justice needs to be ready in case there is a move to dismiss; the Constitution says ..’to try all Impeachments’. It doesn’t say to, entertain, to consider, to debate whether to have a trial. Just as Sen McConnell seems to overpower the president, Roberts needs to maintain the primacy of the Constitution and it’s intention (however limited it’s directions might be). A trial. Impeach, or don’t Impeach. Up or down. No dismissals.
And if the Senators aren’t jurors, but the court, that smacks more of a militaristic tribunal.
As for that problematic oath, come on. It’s political. Change the oath to read more along the lines of reality; as Amy Klobishar (yes, my spelling needs work) indicated, maybe they should just swear to try to keep an open mind, be open to the evidence and ....strive towards fairness.
Good luck Chief Justice Roberts; if I could find you a four leaf clover, I’d send it along.
3
The Senate has complete authority granted via the impeachment sections of the Constitution. That authority is not a byproduct of standard legislative procedures.
Complete authority to hold a trial. But to create rules that overrule the very concept of a trial, ie, witnesses, etc? And to just dismiss? Rules v. A very limited Constitutional mandate in wording. We can differ.
"[Roberts] will leave behind an institution that prides itself on reason and decorum and enter one marked by partisan warfare."
Seriously? The Supreme Court with its conservative majority has proved itself anything by non-partisan. The winner of whatever warfare takes place behind the scenes is predetermined from day one. Who doesn't know how the Court is going to rule the minute they take a case?
Until proven otherwise I would put the Chief Justice in the same column as Republican "moderates," who say moderate things and promptly cave to the will of their party.
To show impartiality the first order of business might be challenging McConnell's oath of impartiality. In the rest of the world perjury would land a person in jail. But McConnell, like the president, is above the law--not considers himself so, but apparently actually is
12
Chief Justice should at least take the swearing in of senators most seriously. Given the public statements by many of the senators who do not see their role to be fair and honest, he should insist that the oath be administered individually with hand firmly placed on the bible.
9
Any Senator can make a motion on the whether an action is appropriate. The Senate, with the full authority granted by the Constitution, would vote on the motion.
Mr. Blazin, after looking at your responses to others’ comments, I thought you must be a law professor. Then, out of curiosity, I pecked around online and found your LinkedIn profile. You’re not a law prof - just a flat-out brilliant guy.
@Xoxarle. I hope you are wrong and that he will reach into his soul and find a core of human decency.
1
Thank you for making it clear, before the impeachment trial, that impartiality is expected. Everyone is put on notice.
We are watching! We are taking it all in! We are determining the impact for our country and communities.
AND. We have great memories with digital archives for reference.
2
The takeaway from all this: nobody knows how Roberts will handle it, and there are multiple possibilities, some of them extremely subtle. A lot is riding on one man's grasp of his role at a pivotal moment.
The Constitution gives the Senate "sole power to try" impeachments, but inserts the Chief Justice to "preside." Preside is the verb form of the same word the framers chose (very carefully) for the appellation of the chief executive. It certainly does not suggest a ceremonial role, nor were presiding judges limited to such a role in any judicial context the Constitution's authors knew when they picked the term.
What happens if he actually does see his role as "presiding" in the plain judicial meaning of the word? We may soon have a litmus test for the sincerity of "originalists."
2
@Seraficus
Presiding over the Senate trial makes Roberts the leader of the Senate and McConnell just another senator of many.
I would hope that the Chief Justice would inform Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham that they have already announced their lack of impartiality. If they now take an oath to be impartial they are clearly committing perjury. Therefore, they should not be allowed to participate as jurors sworn to be impartial.
1818
@Leslie
Roberts CJ should indeed disqualify any Senator who has publicly prejudged the matter before them. He won’t, of course.
139
@Leslie Any normal juror who had said what McConnell and Graham have said, would be tossed on a peremptory challenge, and so fast it would make your head spin.
Why should these 2 jurors in the Senate be treated any differently?
However, an order of recusal against them by Roberts could be overruled by Senate majority vote, which it would be.....
145
@me
How is it that the Senate can overrule a Chief Justice?
31
This whole thing appears to be contradictory and ill-defined. The Senate apparently serves as some odd mixture of judge and jury. The authority of the named judge is up for grabs. Removal of a sitting president is serious business and the procedure for doing so should have been more explicit. Justice Roberts will probably have to assume the necessary authority to prevent a total mess at trial.
3
The second that McConnell et al. take an oath to be impartial they will have committed perjury, for they have already announced publicly that they have no intention of being impartial.
15
Agreed. And Roberts won’t bounce them as he should. Do you think Bill Barr will then open an investigation into possible perjury charges? The reality that the answer to both questions is “no” — and McConnell and Graham know that — says a lot about our government, its institutions and the state of our democracy.
10
The tone of the article is, Roberts will bend over backwards to appear impartial and preserve credibility. I’d prefer his goal to be, to be impartial and to preserve justice. But I simply don’t believe Republicans anymore are capable of thinking that way. I’d love to be proven wrong.
8
It is my belief and hope that Chief Justice Roberts is the United State's last chance of maintaining facts, truth, reality and the rule of law to uphold the Constitution, the Senate's responsibilities and the ultimate protection of the citizens and our Democracy. At, that point, it will be a long road to healing from chaos, abuse, pathological lying and the intentional attempts and actions at destroying our government and its democracy. The founders imposed the Chief Justice's role for a reason---a rational one in which reason and rationale are needed and expected.
6
Roberts doesn’t want to be the story? Too bad. The constitution says he’s the presiding official. So preside.
5
A presiding officer hears motions from the floor and counts and reports votes. He or she is not the judge or protector of the body. The Constitution empowers the Senate to be its own guide and protector in this matter.
According to the article, “Under the Senate’s rules, the chief justice’s decisions are provisional and may be overruled by a majority vote.” But another expert deems it highly unlikely a senator would vote to override the chief decision. Obviously these gentlemen have not observed or blatantly ignore the proven willingness of the GOP to do anything and everything to uphold and protect their dear leader. Rest assured the Chief Justice will not be allowed to stand in the way.
2
Judges do not normally make rulings when the actual, final authority is present. It would be a waste of time and judges do not waste time. Any issue would trigger a request for a motion, not a ruling.
If Justice Roberts agrees to administer the oath to McConnell and Graham, he is complicit in perjury. That would make Roberts subject to disbarrment.
3
The Supreme court sacrificed its nonpartisan stature in the travesty known as Bush v. Gore. It's been down hill ever since and if we lose RBG we're doomed.
8
The underlying presumption of this piece is that the Supreme Court isn't already viewed as a partisan outhouse.
5
That headline appears to be an attempt to influence the CJ. Very strange story given Chief Justice Roberts history of fairness on the bench.
1
If justice prevails in the senate during the impeachment trial, that will certainly be because of Justice John Roberts, a Republican, but one that has recently manifested some integrity, a characteristic not common among Republicans in the Senate. We certainly cannot depend on justice prevailing while we have Mitch McConnell leading the Republican-controlled Senate, unless McConnell experiences a conversion comparable to Paul's conversion experience while on the road to Damascus. Mitch has already told us that he is on the same page as the legal team representing Trump, which makes justice impossible.
4
Perilous?
Yes, but not for Roberts. For half of the electorate.
Guess which half.
Hint: They think they have "starz upon thar's."
Hint Two: They don't.
1
The circumstances require us to consider what the term "impartial justice" means -- and whether rendering it is possible when those charged with responsibility for delivering it are, as individuals, not impartial and, if honest, would admit that. Is this to become a responsibility of the Chief Justice in this proceeding? Or is his functions here only ministerial? And what is "justice" in this special context? The question has been around for some time, of course. (Think of who holds the scale blindfolded: Themis. And Aristotle. Begin there.)
1
I hardly think the Court has much of a reputation for impartiality left for Roberts to fret over.
10
"Peril for his reputation and that of his court?" What reputations could Liptak possibly be talking about? The Citizens United reputation? Or the Heller reputation? Or Shelby County v Holder, which countenanced Scalia noting that, unlike the Congress, the Court is appointed for life and need not fear being called racists? Not since the Fuller court of the (original) Gilded Age, which gave us, among so many other like them, Ping v US, Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust, US v E.C. Knight, and its twin coups de grace: Lochner v NY and Plessy v Ferguson? Not since that monument to corporate interests and the institutionalization of racism and anti-immigrant bias at the heart of our conception of citizenship has any court so disgraced its individual members and itself as an institution like the Roberts Court has done.
7
I hope Roberts surprises me.
3
The so-called Supreme Court has already lost legitimacy. You can’t steal a nomination from Obama and then install a lying frat boy and expect Americans consider this legitimate. It is not and its ruling are illegitimate!
9
To preside - to exercise guidance, direction, or control. There is nothing in the Constitution which bars the presiding Chief Justice from making rulings on evidence or otherwise ruling with respect to accessibility of evidence - such as to documents or witnesses. The role of the presiding Chief Justice is what he or she chooses to make of it. And that is his profound responsibility. Judges presided in the time of the Constitution much as they preside now. The primary goal of the Chief Justice presiding over the trial of impeachment is to help ensure both the appearance and the fact of propriety and fairness, such that the process utilized to reach a decision by the Senate will be accepted by the people. Remember that the Chief Justice, having previously been approved for the position by the Senate, having that stamp of approval, also carries a certain moral as well as legal authority. Many of the comments here are focused on condemning in advance the anticipated result. That is not the point. The point is the fairness of the process and the role of the Chief Justice in helping to assure a fair process. The political system will work its wonders in November 2020, particularly if the process is deemed unfair by the people. The Founding Fathers have trusted us with that responsibility.
2
That is not the role of a presiding officer in either the Constitution, collect Senate has full authority, or in Robert’s Rules of Order.
No! Trump's impeachment trial will be perilous for the Democrats! They are shooting themselves in the foot!
1
Roberts need only refrain from interfering with Senate Republicans' conduct of the trial to further their and his common objective of not damaging Republican political power. The outcome of the trial is foreordained and the squabbling is only about whether evidence will be fully presented or not. Possibly Roberts could somehow cause witnesses to be called, but that would have no effect on the trial itself. What will affect Roberts' reputation is his vote on upcoming cases before the court.
3
Please remember Justice Robert's, all people are equal in the eyes of the law. Do not allow president Trump be a King. Your decision on this issue will be your legacy.
1
It could hurt the court? That ship has sailed long time ago. I know nothing about the law and yet I can predict any particular outcome 9 out of 10 times. I think the court’s politicization is a don deal.
5
I want to know if he will accept McConnell and Graham's oath, as they have made it quite clear they are not and will not be impartial, and thus will be committing perjury.
13
@ariella: Every "So help me God" oath defies separation of church and state in this madhouse nation. The notion that ostensible fear of post-mortal punishment assures honesty is a joke.
2
I don’t know the statute of limitations on perjury committed in a federal proceeding. But I presume it’s longer than a year, and likely two, three or more. Interesting if the next president is a democrat and appoints an attorney general who actually cares to do his job. In such a case, job one should be to open up a perjury investigation into any senators who violate their oaths to do impartial justice — most obviously McConnell and Graham who have publicly announced they intend to commit perjury. If the evidence is there — and it appears it will be the moment they take their oaths next week, they should be prosecuted. Prosecutions serve to deter and we must deter conduct such as that in which McConnell and Graham are about to engage.
The ultimate question is: does Trump own SCOTUS too?
4
Roberts will forever be tainted by the awful Citizens United decision, making corporations "people" and therebymgiving our elections to the highestr bidder. The ruination of real democracy.
15
“When the president of the United States is tried,” Article I, Section 3 says, “the chief justice shall preside.” But the founding charter says no more, and just what role the chief justice is meant to perform has proved baffling.
It's my guess that the framers' intention was to have the Chief Justice ensure that the trial was fair. But I don't see how you can have a fair trial when two of the jurors (or whatever we're supposed to call them) have already said they have no intention of being fair. As a matter of fact, both McConnell and Graham were absolutely "in your face" about their intention to be partial in favor of Trump. If they were men of honor, they would recuse themselves; but then, if they were men of honor, they would never have made such statements in the first place.
It's my guess that both McConnell and Graham will raise their right hands and swear to God that they will be impartial when they have both already said, unprompted, that they have no intention of being impartial. How can the Chief Justice also honor his oath of impartiality if he allows this?
If all three of these men do as I expect they will do, it will just be another example of how our system of government is failing us.
6
He has a lifetime appointment. If ever a person was able to honor noble intentions in a role, it’s a Justice of the Supreme Court.
If he is under duress it’s because he has accepted being subject to political motivations. That would be very likely and equally unfortunate. The court has been loaded with political hacks; that strategy is fundamental to republican maintenance of dominance and control
5
Over the course of this trial and the SC rulings over the next year or so, we will have an accurate picture of who Roberts really is and we won't be in a quandary over whether he will favor the GOP over the USA. We will know, and the Republic will stand or fall on his watch. On YOUR watch, Roberts. Think about that.
3
McConnell will not allow the pyrotechnics we witnessed from House Republicans on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees. Roberts has nothing to worry about and that's good for him because he has no qualifications for the job assigned to him.
Release of financial records? Of a person running and carrying the public business and trust? Of course!!!! This has to be the least challenging case before SC.
2
Remarkably, Donald Trump, our sociopath in chief, has achieved every dream he has ever had. He is famous beyond measure. More than likely his Presidency will remain well known and studied for generations due to its massive incompetency, its authoritarianism and corruption.
He is perhaps the most successful conman and criminal in history. John Dillinger perhaps thought of running for President, but only Trump, among America's great sociopaths, ran and won (along with the help of Russia and the Evangelical cult).
So why should he care if he's Impeached? The only reason, and its a good one, is that he risks spending the rest of his life in jail if he doesn't win another 4 years.
Like Dillinger, John Gotti, and Al Capone, he's managed to avoid prison. Its amazing to see really. Like tax evasion (or simply being able to afford to pay your taxes) Trump's wealth, political power, and luck have fully insulated him from successful prosecution. So far.
Trump's life is an amazing thing to see. A master criminal. A buffoon? Sure. But America loves its PT Barnum's , its sociopaths, and Donald Trump.
4
Good points all, but with a life-time unassailable sinecure, if Roberts or any of the other Trump Supremes could care less, they certainly would. It's not apparent that "image" is a viable concern.
1
Chief Justice Roberts goal is actually the destruction of The Constitution by every structural means. He is about power and the abuse of Rule of Law. Citizens United showed his colors. No patriot there and no reputation remaining.
7
Signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court . . . Unless it is partisanship towards the Democrats view. What a joke.
2
You mean toward the rule of law?
@Calvin: On the one hand, your comment is not without merit; Roberts is truly between a rock and a hard place on this.
But, on the other hand, between Citizens United; the Hobby Lobby ruling that allows employers of religious faith to deny their employees birth control as part of their medical coverage; and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, on the inexcusably naive belief that "racism no longer exists..." Roberts and the GOP have "stepped into it, barefooted," and unfortunately, it's not just Roberts who will risk looking partisan; even if Trump is, justifiably found guilty, on the basis of both evidence and witness testimony.
In all fairness, there's plenty of blame to go around within the Senate; starting with Mitch McConnell, who apparently doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.
2
@Bryce Ross : Your not saying that partisanship towards the Democrats is partisanship towards the rule of law? Lord Jesus . . . Sorry, that’s right you guys don’t believe . . . Tell me that is not the lens you are looking through.
Justice Roberts has the chance to either show courage to go down in infamy has a Dread Scott 21st century Taney.
2
The Republican Senators risk all credibility if they decide to use their majority to overrule Chief Justice Robert's decisions supporting the integrity of the impeachment process. For the good of our nation, let the Senators allow for a real trial with real witnesses and evidence and real commitment to their oaths to carry out impartial justice. Let their votes be authentic based on the evidence and testimony. If Chief Justice Roberts collaborates with Republican leaders to carry out a sham trial then his actions will justify a number of major revisions to the Court once the Democrats take back the Senate. First suggestion would be to expand the number of Justices on the US Supreme Court from 9 to 15.
7
He is not going to make any decisions. As presiding officer, he will simply have the Majority Leader call for a vote on the issue. Not being a member of the body, he does not have a vote.
2
The chief justice must dismiss the charges against the president as they don't constitute crimes. Neither abuse of power nor obstruction of congress by a branch of government can be considered.
1
@Charles Segal
Agreed. It's a made-up allegation. There are 3 branches of government, each with its respective privileges and rights, which is a fact democrats have chosen to ignore.
1
Is extortion not a crime in Jamaica?
1
Extortion is not an executive right. Neither is international murder
Since when does "signs of partisanship" damage the Supreme Court? Have we already forgotten the 2000 election?
9
It is important to keep in mind that the House Judiciary Committee’s 169-page assessment of the case for Trump’s removal from office published in support of the two bills of impeachment state that Trump committed “multiple federal crimes” - ones that fall under the broad umbrella of “abuse of power,” the first article of impeachment against Trump.
“Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal,” the panel’s members argue, labeling Trump’s behavior “both constitutional and criminal in character” and contending that the president “betrayed the people of this nation” and should be removed from office.
Premises considered, the evidence already presented and in the congressional record is the same evidence and sworn testimony that McConnell and Trump want to suppress in the course of obstructing the lawful removal of Trump.
Additionally, their ongoing unlawful obstruction of his removal is also preventing the timely criminal indictment and ultimate prosecution of Trump by the United States of America.
To sum it all up, the ultimate goal is to keep Trump out of prison.
1
Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated an even and non-partisan hand. Let's be honest. He'll be reviled if he doesn't rule the way progressives demand.
1
Guilt by association. That's to be expected if Roberts passively presides over what turns out to be a sham trial. And it seems like a sham trial is what McConnell's had been planning (a team player on the White House team).
3
The Supreme Court has already been tarnished.
5
All Roberts has to do is stay right in the middle, which will anger Trump and that's the best thing that could happen.
1
Now is the time for Chief Justice Roberts to act in a way that counteracts the perception--which he deplores--that the Supreme Court has degenerated into a partisan institution.
5
My concern: I have no faith in this institution anymore, not after they handed Bush II a victory in Florida. They will vote partisan.
9
One is reminded of the famous Maya Angelou quote: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time".
The notion that John Roberts cares about impartial justice is laughable. He is an ideologue with a political agenda. Nothing more. At a time when large corporations have unimaginable power over all aspects of our lives, and humans are being crushed by them, he gives more power to corporations. At a time when a political minority is fighting a vicious rear-guard action against democracy, he enables a systematic disenfranchisement of people of color not seen since the early 1960's.
He only appears sane in comparison to Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and the enraged, spittle-flying Kavanaugh. That bar is very low. If he manages to refrain from wearing a red MAGA hat during the impeachment proceedings he'll be celebrated as a model of judicial impartiality and decorum.
8
I sometimes wonder how these justices, who read the similar text books, allegedly follow the same constitution and got same law degrees, almost always differ in their opinions on almost every issue. They seem to use law and constitution mainly to justify their core values that they imbibed while growing up in a particular family with particular political, social, economic, and of course moral values rather than understanding the law and constitution to validate those values after getting their law degrees.
Supreme court is always political and both political parties seems to be happy with it- for now at least. That's why we do have Democratic and Republican judges. It doesn't matter what our current Chief Justice say to glorify our Supreme Court.
2
Like all things in Trump's America, this will be a farce. The US no longer has any considered moral standing in the world but are ridiculed. They are run by a reality tv "star" of the most dubious character. The world suffers for the American public's ignorance in electing this person.
4
Lately, many Americans seem to be concerned with being regulated to “third world” status, as if our corruption, merely brought to light under this administration, did not exist prior.
It is high time we stop thinking of ourselves as having superior institutions to the rest of the world, including the developing world. Our own crimes against our citizens and against humanity, have been hidden in plain sight or wrapped up in pretty bows of legalese while we pontificated to the rest of the world, when we absolutely had no right to. If there’s one thing the Trump administration has exposed — it’s our own fragility, capacity for blatant political crimes and corruption, and that we are indeed as susceptible to the rule of power and money over the rule of law, as any oligarchy is. And make no mistake about it — we’ve been an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy for a long time. The courts are poisoned, as is Congress and the office of the presidency.
And now the world will get to see it all on full display while many pretend this trial is just and fair when many of the players involved have no intention of participating with integrity. What a sham.
7
“How would a senator feel about overruling a judgment on the merits by the chief justice?” Professor Campbell asked. “I think ‘hesitant’ would be the adjective I’d use.”
Professor Campbell you don’t know this motley crew of Republican Senators. They won’t think twice about overruling the Chief Justice.
9
Your headline would be true, dramatic even, if only our Chief Justice had anything of a reputation left.
The man is a doctrinaire functionary We may as well be honest about now, at this late date. of the first order and his court has followed suit.
5
The Article mentions that Chief Justice Roberts will "administer an oath to senators in which they swear to do “impartial justice” in the trial,..." But we know for a fact this won't happen because among other things, The Senate Majority Leader (Sen. McConnell) has explicitly acknowledged he is not an impartial juror? (Ref. 1), that it is no secret voting in the Senate will follow partisan lines regardless of facts and evidence shown (Ref. 2 and 3)?
1. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788924966/mcconnell-i-m-not-impartial-about-impeachment
2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-17/mcconnell-plots-path-to-deliver-swift-trump-acquittal-by-senate
3. https://www.ft.com/content/b3783522-3187-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de
3
Why would he change his tune now?
2
Question to the author or anyone out there who knows: the author says- "Chief Justice Roberts’s first official act will be to take an oath to “do impartial justice,”
Who administers the Roberts oath? Not the president, I hope!
5
We already know that CJ John Roberts is a pawn of corporations(Citizens united).. now time has come to see last core of the men:
Is he the real CJ of America for American people or bought and paid for by Oligarch's (GOP sponsors) and stand against everything America stands for:
Truth, Values, Facts and Trust..
8
As the article pointed out, in this case, the role of the Chief Justice may be limited and heavy on ceremony. However, this is a critical stage for the Chief Justice and Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome, because he needs to demonstrate that the Court is independent and non partisan and not beholden to particular political parties or Presidents. When new Justices take their place on the Bench, they are no longer Republicans or Democrats and no longer should consider themselves appointees of one President or another. Loyalty and adherence is to the Constitution and rule of Law, not to any President, present or past. This is particularly critical now for the Court to be independent and seen to be independent as, unusually, it has two new members who might be perceived by the public as being obligated to the man who recently nominated them. This "trial" is a great opportunity for the Chief Justice to make clear the Supreme Court's integrity and credibility.
4
I agree with several other comments here. If the Chief Justice accepts oaths to do impartial justice from Senators who have already declared their intention not to be impartial, it is all over.
Not just the propriety of the trial, but the separation of powers, the Constitution and the Republic itself will be injured if the Chief Justice accepts misrepresentations under oath in his most significant task in these proceedings.
Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham must recuse themselves or commit perjury before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If they raise their hands, the Chief Justice should refuse to administer the oath.
9
Why does the senate get to vote on everything? With so little constitutional guidance, what keeps Roberts from running the show like any judge in a courtroom would?
1
The Constitution does. It is explicit that the collective body of the Senate has full authority to do what it wants. The only rule is how many votes are required to convict.
@TG Because it’s not a normal criminal or civil trial. It’s a political exercise. The chief justice will do and say very very little. Only one party voted for impeachment with a few defections. It is exactly what Alexander Hamilton warned us about in the Federalist papers.
1
As the article states, that, taking control of the proceedings, is what the Chief Justice did in the Senate trial following the House’s impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.
The 'presider' (in the Constitution an undefined term) is at a disadvantage if McConnell with his majority decides to make a sham of the trial. Already they're talking about barring the press (so will it be a 'secret' trial?).
3
Roberts has already allowed the Court to be damaged by partisanship. Not only because of some manifestly partisan decisions in recent years, but by not weighing in on the Constitutional outrage regarding Merrick Garland, and by allowing InJustices Gorsuch and Beerboy to be seated prior to an up or down vote on Garland. I know the Court doesn't do these things. But neither did the Senate until now. And by standing passively by, accepting whatever the Senate throws at him, Roberts is allowing the Court to become complicit in hyper-partisan degradation of our democracy and the Court.
10
The court is going let Chris Christie walk over his bridge debacle by throwing up their hands and declaring "The government is filled with rules. And there are numerous instances where a person might say something untrue about something related to a rule that gives him authority for that, " In other words, let them lie, which is what they did here. So much for the Republican worldview of following the 10 commandments, though they only ask that others do. The rule of law is the rule that lies don't matter, Mr. Justice. Let Trump walk free. It fits this ideal there are just too many ways to lie so why bother enforcing truth.
2
Has Roberts ever tried a lawsuit as advocate or judge? Has he ever had to rule on objections? He has no experience in a trial setting. He is not up to this job in terms of experience and his partiality to the GOP disqualifies him as well. This “trial” will be just another black mark on the the most corrupt presidential term in our country’s history.
I don’t know if intimidating a foreign leader into fabricating dirt in a political opponent is a high crime or misdemeanor but it ought to be. And based on my reading of the history of the development of the Constitution it is exactly the conduct the framers believed to be grounds for removal from office.
217
@Nb I’m not sure any of our current Supreme Court justices have the “trial law” experience that critics complain about, except Gorsuch. Would you prefer he take the helm? And shoe me one criminal defense attorney on our highest bench. Show me someone who has tried a case within the past 25 years other than Gorsuch.
Yep....Didn’t think so. The argument above is moot as such unless you think Gorsuch should take Roberts place.
At least Roberts did some pro bono criminal defense-type work. And Roberts has a history of impartiality...look at his pro bono Ferguson work. The current GOP’s collective head would explode if a current nominee defended a black mass murderer. Same with his work with gay rights.
I have a profound dislike for the current GOP, but I’m sorry, NYT, the endorsement of blatant partisanship in your comments section undermines the paper’s value as objective news.
As an independent I’ll take Roberts at the helm of this ordeal over Gorsuch or Ginsberg any day.
7
@Nb
Roberts spent 14 years in private practice as a LITIGATOR. He argued 14 cases before SCOTUS. Litigators know as much as judges do about admissibility of evidence and other issues dealt with by judges in trials. What’s more, Roberts will apparently function more as a referee than a judge. I am sure he can handle it. I am a Democrat. I think your questioning Roberts’s impartiality is not based on the evidence. Roberts is very aware of the role of the Supreme Court and the importance of preserving its reputation as an impartial judge of the cases it hears. Roberts crossed the aisle and cast the tie breaking vote in favor of the liberals in two times in very important cases. He is regarded as a swing voter.
9
@Bathsheba Robie
being an appellate lawyer is not the same as being a litigator or trial judge
he might have done some pro bono work
1
I have no faith in Roberts. His vote to dismantle the voting rights law led to widespread voter purges and suppression. I’m convinced he’ll contort himself to align with Trump.
223
This headline belongs to the world of about 5 years ago, when things like "damage to the Supreme Court" meant anything. It means nothing now. Politics among all 3 branches of the government of the United States is now exclusively a naked exercise of power.
I fear that is all it will ever be from this point on. We may have broken the United States.
8
This court is damaged goods as far as being politically partisan is concerned, especially since the Bush non-election fiasco, and even more so now. Anyone who pays attention would take this into account.
6
Our founding fathers wrote brilliant ideals not knowing in the future the problem would be the weak cowardly men who lack the honest integrity to uphold them.
11
“Mostly ceremonial”? The Constitution says that the Chief Justice “presides” over the impeachment trial.
5
Presiding over the Senate is a ceremonial role. The Majority Leader controls the debate with the Senators themselves deciding all issues by collective vote. High school civics covered it.
How sad it is to read the headline ... Perilous duty for Chief of Justice. Justice is all about making sure life is fair for everyone. No one is wrongly committed of a crime and criminals are indicted and put on trial. There are jurors who listen to evidence and the trial is fair. I could go on and on, but the key point is, our Chief Justice is supposed to be following our laws, not trying to decide how to best serve the President. It should not be a conflict of interest to throw our democracy away in order to support a known criminal.
The GOP has vowed to dismiss our laws in order to protect a known criminal. This way, they can hold their heads up high, along with Trump and declare Trump innocent.
Our Chief Justice needs to work for justice for all. Not create an endless supply of excuses for Trump to continue his dictatorship over America.
8
If it appears Roberts put his thumb on the scale, the Dems have a potent issue for the electorate: who do you trust to make Supreme Court nominations? DJT?
2
Remember Bush v Gore? The Supreme Court is already a damaged institution, John Roberts is a right wing hack & this papers inability to stop deferring to power is tiring.
12
The only body damaging the Court are the liberal media who still cannot let go of the fact that Merrick garland was not nominated to SCOTUS. The Democrats and the liberal media did everything in their power to destroy Kavanaugh (and are still trying) and are furious with the number of justices who have been nominated to the Appellate courts. No matter what Robert does, it will be the wrong thing and the media will scream that he is Partisan.
4
Kavanaugh was guilty as accused. I know it and so do you. We all know that the macho/drunk college hi-jinx that she described is spot-on. We all knew creeps like this. He turned his life around, but he’s still guilty.
I asked an attorney if circumstantial evidence can prove guilt. She said that most murder convictions are by circumstantial evidence. There are rarely witnesses to murder and the perp can dispose of the weapon.
Let’s stop this silliness that Kav and Trump are innocent. Every republican senator knows they guilty. The whole world knows it.
8
Gun;
I believe I’m the old adage: innocent until proven guilty.
1
@Pvbeachbum
Yes, whenever they don't prevail, they demonize whatever or whoever they believe kept them from winning. From the electoral college to SCOTUS, there's no end to their demonization of whatever keeps them from prevailing.
2
Thanks, You wrote:
"In his judicial rulings, Chief Justice Roberts has generally been a reliable member of the court’s conservative majority."
Overseeing the trial is not Roberts's only task in this giant corruption fiasco. Many motions, appeals, etc. are sitting before the SC now and awaiting decision. Roberts needs to be reminded constantly that the life or death of our republic is right in his lap. We live or die as a free society on his watch. The democratic republic that has survived for nearly 250 years will live or die ON HIS WATCH.
2
"Signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court." Sorry to say, but that ship has sailed, at least dating back to Bush v. Gore in Dec. 2000. And with the way the current Court leans and rules, it is clear that the Republican appointees are partisan hacks, just like their godfather Mitch McConnell. The Supreme Court's reputation has been completely destroyed, and nothing Roberts (aka Mr. Citizens United) will do can change that.
6
Now you know why the Generals have been perpetuating the wars. Stand ready patriots. Trump is a military puppet determined to instill martial law. This day was destined to come.
Here's a hypothetical situation: Let's say the Democrats offer a motion to call certain Trump Administration officials (and/or Giuliani) to testify and/or documents be subpoenaed and the Republicans object on the grounds of "executive privilege," would Roberts rule on that motion? Since the full SCOTUS would not be hearing the argument, would not Roberts be required to rule based on precedent, which seems to reject the privilege claim?
The Senate could vote to overrule him, but that might be hard for the public to accept considering that the Chief Justice would have more credibility in ruling on the Constitutional issue than a mere Senator or even lower court judge.
3
The Chief Justice is not going to rule on anything. He will simply open it to the Senators to vote on the issue since the Constitution gives them that authority.
Chief Justice Roberts is owned by the Republicans just as much as Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. He will do as told. I can't believe how naive this article is.
14
The fix is in.
Before Justice Kennedy's former Law Clerk, Justice Kavanaugh was nominated. Justice Kennedy attended a private White House meeting after which time, Kavanaugh was publicly nominated and later confirmed in a show hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
The fix is in.
4
We have a Constitutional crisis. The generals are in control.
1
Justice Roberts will do just fine as a trial judge even though he never was one. He was well raised by his mother, who her neighbors called a "stickler" for good conduct. She made her teenaged son attend a high school where classes were conducted in French.
Roberts had 3 years experience as a civil litigator. He has 7 years experience as an appellate litigator. Appeals are all about taking apart what happened in a trial. Then he spent 2 years as a Court of Appeal judge doing similar work.
The man understands what is supposed to go on in a fair trial. He cares about his reputation and legacy. Justice Roberts will do just fine, and certainly not let the Republican clowns in the Senate make a circus out of it.
4
Why is it perilous? Follow the law. Can a credible trial be held without witnesses? Chief Justice alone must decide. This is not a question to be voted on by the Jurors.
2
The fear of Republicans in having a fair trial with evidence and actual witnesses would be comical if it was not so dangerous.
If Trump is so innocent from this so-called unfounded Witch Hunt, then what is the harm of an open trial?
5
@Anon The harm is that he is guilty, and they know it. Regular republicans know it too. But, neither the Senators nor the GOO base cares. They accept his use of foreign election assistance to do his dirty work now, just as they did before with Russia.
4
The whole world knows he’s guilty. History won’t look back on this kindly.
2
The Court is not "reeling" from the last two confirmation battles. it is going along smoothly. Only in the minds of left-wing partisans like Liptak are their continued whining about the results causing any issue in the Court. In reality, the Justices couldn't care less.
4
The court has been in decline since Gove vs Bush. The conservative appointments have been politics first, scholarship second. So many of the decisions have been silly stretches that defy common-sense logic. Every 5th grader knows what a militia is, and what ‘well regulated’ means.
2
Many politicians operate with at least one eye on their legacy, on how they will be judged by history.
In one of the most significant trials ever to take place in America I'd be surprised if Chief Justice Roberts hasn't given thought to what his legacy will be.
If he allows McConnell to block witnesses, how's that going to look over time? The same question applies to allowing Senators who have announced their prejudices to be a part of Court proceedings.
One vote will see his being removed from office.
1
Although the Supreme Court is no better or worse than other courts, anything that reveals and educates the public about the Supreme Court's biases and corruption is a good thing. Further obfuscation, cover ups, and pro-government propaganda and lies is a bad thing. (From a lawyer.)
2
All senators will be sworn in to be impartial? At the risk of perjury? This could get interesting:
Perjury is the criminal act of lying or making statements to misrepresent something while under oath. Lying under oath disrupts the judicial process and is taken very seriously. Being convicted of perjury can result in serious consequences, including probation and fines. For federal perjury, a person can be convicted by up to five years in prison. For state perjury convictions, a similar sentence in a state prison may be imposed.
3
In the tug of war(= impeachment) between the two parties, there will be full-fledged efforts to cover or expose the truth. The Chief Justice's role is to ensure that there are no roadblocks to American people having access to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
1
'Impartial justice' - I barely even expect that from the Supreme Court anymore. I certainly don't expect it from the Senate.
7
I'm a bit confused about the lack of discussion about ties in the Senate. In a normal legislative session, ties are broken by the VP. Isn't a tie vote broken by the Chief Justice in the case of impeachment?
1
@DGThere can be no tie in terms of a vote.
Not a tie breaker where there is a super majority vote is necessary, but the procedural votes where a simple majority is required, such as witnesses, yes/no, individual witness yes/no, etc.
Only a member of the body, I.e., Senate, can vote. That is Robert’s Rules of Order. The Vice President is a member of the Senate by the Constitution with special voting privileges conferred only to him. He does not get those privileges by being the Presiding Officer. If a motion does not get a majority, it does not pass. I would expect the Majority Leader would be smart enough to have any issue he is against to frame the motion as something requiring majority vote.
Trump is right about one thing: There are Obama judges. Supreme Court appointments generally reflect the views of the nominating President. That's kind of the point. Why now is Roberts so worried that the Court could somehow be perceived as partisan? When you elevate corporate personhood over human personhood and pollute the system with partisan money, or restore right of states like Georgia to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of minority voters or agree to hear cases that will kill Roe v. Wade which is established law, you can expect to be called all kinds of things, the least of which is partisan. The Court is partisan. The Left may hate it while the Right celebrates it, but everybody knows the Supreme Court of the United States is...partisan! Perhaps Roberts' anxiety that an established fact might be true merely signals his inclination to acquit a President who is the tool of the Federalist Society.
11
There is little reason to believe that Robert's is going to make sure there is a fair and impartial trial. He may raise his right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution, but you can expect that his actions won't match his words. Just like the Republican's oath, actions and twisted defense of their positions won't align with their Constitutional duties. Roberts' bias has been showing for so long that most people already know he has led the Supreme Court into being an arm of the Republican Party. When this era of the Supreme Court is historically talked about in the future, Robert's relationship to how his and his fellow justice's, political corruption took over this court and almost destroyed it, will be well documented.
2
Looking on from abroad I would argue that the ship has long sailed on Supreme Court impartiality. The two most recent confirmation processes have made it very clear that the Court is a political body through which the GOP aims to impose legislation for which it cannot otherwise gain Congressional acceptance or for that matter from the majority of the voters. The US court system is on a slippery slope towards partisanship as the spate of partisan (often barely qualified) appointments to lower courts by the Trump administration have and are demonstrating. Further, by constantly questioning the impartiality of the judiciary Trump and his ilk everywhere else are seeking to undermine the court system and its independence. Once this process has started it is very difficult to reverse. Be careful what you wish for.
5
Can Chief Justice Roberts instill integrity into the proceedings and minimize the blatant partisan politicalization by The Party of Lincoln, as they like to refer to themseves?
3
"..any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”
Just a moment, looking at this situation from out of the country, Trump and his chums have been using government funds and pressure on a foreign government to attack leaders of his opposing political party. How do you become impartial about that?
3
Any perception of impartiality of the SCOTUS was lost long ago starting with the denial of Merrick Garland. Let’s stop pretending already shall we?
11
All I can say is that we will see. Let us see how it plays out.
And God Bless RBG!
3
I think there should be some sort of requirement that justices of the Supreme Court have had experience earning a living as lawyers who have hung out a shingle and represented clients who chose them.
Anybody know the last justice to whom that applied?
3
Wasn't it Justice Stevens?
1
Preventing tyranny of the majority is a foundational principle of our political system. Democrats can petition Roberts for Bolton's testimony. He can suspend the trial to consider it while denying McConnell the chance to hold a vote on witnesses.
Roberts's ruling will be written with rationale strong enough to prevent Republicans from voting to overrule his ruling. He will protect the integrity of the federal judiciary and his legacy.
McConnell's model of Clinton's trial is flawed because Democratic and Republican leaders cooperated in a non-partisan way. History will judge Roberts harshly if he allows McConnell to rig a sham trial as he has stated repeatedly.
3
"Preventing tyranny of the majority is a foundational principle of our political system." How do you figure that one when these institutions supported slavery? Or is slavery not part of your definition of tyranny?
2
No, he can’t. He simply has the Majority Leader call for a vote on the issue.
Don't worry, John -- you'll do well. Just remember the words of your best teachers and mentors, and preserve the Republic.
1
Lordy.
Every decision we make, every day, has consequences. Yet we cope. As long as he thinks about getting up and going to work tomorrow, and the day after,... then he will be fine.
A world view will be his perspective. He really isn't an activist judge, and will be diligent in avoiding the appearance of partisanship.
I'm 80% sure...
1
If Roberts chooses to do nothing, he will preside over a sham trial that will elevate the powers of the executive branch at the expense of the legislature. That choice essentially means a President can behave with impunity, and the principle of separation of powers no longer matters.
Instead of being concerned that requiring witnesses will judged by the public as partisan, Roberts should consider how his choices will be judged by history.
8
Like any trial, the merits of the articles must be the sole outcome. To accomplish that, witnesses and withheld evidence must be allowed. However, attempts to politicize the trail should be squashed by Roberts. Trump is on trial, not the Bidens or anyone else. If this trial becomes a cover-up, then America stains its status as a beacon of democracy and a country that stands for equal law to all.
4
The Court that gave us Citizen United is concerned about its image? The Court that has let The Right gut Obamacare is really non partisan? The Warren Court was the last great court in my opinion.You would have to be living in a bubble to actually think justice from The Supreme Court is blind.
7
I read recently about the attacks on the judiciary in Poland. Some brave Polish statesmen are trying to keep the judiciary independent and not buckle under an ideological, abusive political leadership. The Supreme Court carries with it an imprimatur of reason and equanimity and a legacy of the pursuit of the truth under law. Our politics are broken at this moment and the system has come perilously close to chaos. If rule of law means anything anymore, it has to be defended. Because eventually when the politics devolve into the deepest open corruption and contempt for law-bound behavior, it will be too late for the law to speak.
4
Roberts, the institutionalist that he is, will require witnesses on both sides to add decorum and to follow legitimate laws .
3
McConnell has already brazenly and shamelessly confirmed that he will be violating his oath to render impartial justice by proclaiming that he is coordinating everything with the White House. Is there no process or penalty (or forced recusal) that will be imposed for this, or does one simply chalk this up as another one of the many lies that Trump and his sycophants have burdened our country with?
11
I see no reason why presiding at an impeachment need be perilous duty for the Chief Justice; it's one of the reasons he has lifetime tenure, to shield him from political considerations.
6
@Lorrie
No, the Chief Justice's role in impeachment is not ceremonial. And it is broadly defined.
I would think if Justice Roberts did call witnesses, it would be a Constitutional Crisis - perhaps the biggest ever. The threat of such a crisis might be enough to induce McConnell to call witnesses, or a sufficient minority of Republicans to vote in favor of witnesses.
If Roberts wants to hear witnesses, he should promulgate the idea of witnesses to give the Senate an opportunity to avoid a crisis.
A federal judge is allowed to call witness by himself or herself in federal court. By analogy, I would think federal Judge John Roberts could do so in the Senate trial.
Therefore, with those all those cards on the table, Mitch McConnell & Company should call witnesses and avoid dragging this country through the mud.
2
Sign of partisanship being defined as not going along with something left and the media demand. Chief Justice has proved pretty malleable in that regard. I am pretty sure he will go along to “ protect” the court’s reputation.
Can Chief Justice Roberts administer the oath to McConnell and the republicans in the Senate that have already decided the outcome prior to the trial?
Right now there are no republican Senators that can swear to this oath of impartiality.
5
It’s really up to moderate republican senators whether the impeachment is a sham or not. And while there are not enough moderates to remove him from office it is still important that the impeachment be about the truth of trump’s actions regarding Ukraine. with 4 moderates, Roberts can run a fair and impartial process. Without 4 moderates, he can make the GOP uncomfortable or he can rollover and make it easy for them. History will judge them all. I think that matters to Roberts. So maybe there’s hope.
2
A tragic joke. After Bush vs. Gore and the profoundly egregious Citizens United ruling...After they gutted Civil Rights legislation and upheld a politically-motivated religion-centered travel ban...After the unconstitutional appointment of Justice Neil Gorsich and the ludicrous Republican appointment of Justice Kavanaugh...After refusing to remedy anti-democratic gerrymandering and Republicans explicitly celebrating extremely conservative court stacking...After ruling after ruling favoring Corporations against employee and consumer...we're still discussing the -concern- that the Court -looks- biased. Sorry, but Robert's and the Court's record already made their biases crystal clear.
44
I beg to differ with the premise here that Chief Justice plays a critical role
I remember Clinton trial well but I hardly recall Chief Justice except for the robe.
I can also say confidently that a significant majority don't even know the name of our current Chief - forget that of Chief at Clinton time.
I think folks at his level generally are aware of history and their place in it.
I take exception to this quote
"...Chief Justice Roberts will resist any attempt by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to rob the proceedings of their solemnity, Mr. Epstein added...."
I remember Mr. Epstein well.
I think this is an uncalled for slur against the Leader.
If anything, the Leader is the one who solemnly offered to hold trial the very day the House passes these shamimpeachment articles.
It is Madame speaker who was not solemn in these proceedings - by dragging her feet to make a political mileage.
The Leader has solemnly proceeded with Clinton precedence.
He has solemnly refused to change rules just for politics.
And as an aside, he had warned Harry Reid about unleashing nuclear option.
Let's leave petty politics out of this and all be a witness to history.
@Neil
The sound you hear, sir, is laughter all across America at the idea that Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr., has any respect for the rule of law at all. Start with Merrick Garland and work backwards. Ask yourself why the senator repeatedly lies about his military record, at one point denying he was even in the military. The rule of law? The man can’t tell the truth about what he ate for breakfast.
3
Impartial justice, ha. McConnell has already taken care of that.
This will be a dog and pony show that isn’t worth the price of admission — our time.
The argument now isn’t whether Trump should be impeached, but rather is this system capable of carrying out impartial justice? If there really is such a thing. I’d settle for an evenly balanced hearing just to see if justice is necessary.
4
That the Supreme Court, after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act (despite the overwhelming vote in both Houses extending the law) in the Shelby County case, etc, etc, has any credibility whatsoever is an enigma to me.
But, my guess, is, that our respect for those nine justices in those black robes will soon be as fleeting as our respect for all of those other deeply flawed human beings to whom we grant power and who appear to exercise that power, not for the powerless, but for benefit of those just like themselves.
15
@Anne, I did not write my comment in ignorance. My comment is a message to Justice Roberts who is a fervent Christian (if only he’d see my remarks). The Isaiah quote is an appeal to Roberts’s heart in hopes he be reassured and strengthened to do the right thing....”Fear not, I am with you......I will uphold you with my righteous right hand”. That’s God talking. Furthermore the John quote is an appeal to his sense of justice, “......we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” That’s Jesus talking. I’m not a religious fanatic by a long shot ... but I am definitely someone who wants to appeal to a Supreme Court Justice in a context that may speak to him.
3
The Supreme Court IS partisan and has been damaged for a while.
6
Gore vs Bush comes to mind.
9
Republicans completely control the Court. Nothing more to be said.
4
Supreme Court is partisan and no matter what Roberts does he is presiding over a Republican Court. He is The Right's Chief Justice.
9
Donald Trump has wholly sullied the executive branch of government and partially degraded the legislative branch. The Supreme Court represents the only thing standing between a trifecta of disruption of all three branches of government by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh notwithstanding. There is a lot riding on Justice Roberts' shoulders. The impeachment trial will show if Roberts appreciates the urgent weight of history knocking at his door if the trial starts to devolve into the sideshow Trump wants or the rigged show trial McConnell has all but guaranteed. Sometimes it's necessary to break glass. This may be that moment for the Supreme Court.
4
As if the Court were not already heavily damaged.
4
The Supreme Court has been openly siding with the GOP since Bush v. Gore. It's only gotten worse (Citizens United) and i don't expect changes anytime soon.
7
The Supreme Court is a corrupt joke, it means nothing.
Roberts is bought and paid for, as are most of the trappings of the US government.
Trump is the leader that Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay deserve - they got the ball rolling.
In the words of Roger Waters, " you're nearly a laugh but you're barely a cry"
Trump is the end of whatever is left of the republic -regardless of the election - IF you get to have one - he's not going anywhere.
5
@Terry Phelps
Welcome, neighbor to the north, to the dreamland known as the United States of America. A rather substantial majority of Americans believe we will have something resembling a fair election, and indeed that we will actually have an election, and indeed that Trump can be defeated and driven out of the White House. When you have so many Americans living in something like a fugue state they can be convinced that Roberts, because the word is in his title, knows the meaning of “justice.” They won’t notice the curtain coming down until it hits the floor.
“We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability,” (Roberts) wrote. “
LOL
5
Please, this is a joke. The five paid lackeys of the GOP have already turned the supreme court into a kangaroo court. It would be as impossible for Roberts to not damage the court as it would be for Trump to do calculus.
5
The substance of this “trial” is out of Robert’s hands.
The Senate by a simple majority vote will determine (1) dismissal without a trial, (2) rules of the trial and (3) whether to call witnesses and subpoena documents.
Trump will lose if (1) actual facts are revealed (emails, notes of meetings, directives, full transcripts of phone calls, etc) and (2) first-hand witnesses are called who are sworn to tell the truth.
It is therefore very unlikely witnesses will be called unless there are 4 or more Republican Senators who are up for re-election this year who fear losing their seats.
Mind you, even if witnesses were called, 20 Republican Senators would never vote to remove Trump from office. The outcome is already fixed.
The Supreme Court doesn't want to be seen as "political."
That is an absurd statement. Of course the Court has become almost entirely political and is rightly seen that way. It has been seen as political since at least the 1930's. Remember FDR's effort to pack the Court which was defeated.
The law is so peripatetic (wandering all about) that it can be and no doubt will be construed in almost any way a Justice is persuaded politically. Most Justices see their job as inacting law agreeable to the party which held power when each was appointed, with of course notable and rather rare exceptions.
The close, highly controversial rulings, almost always break exactly along party lnes - the party of the president who appointed each Justice.
Of course it is not supposed to work that way but no one can deny that it does! That's why presidential and Senate elections are so important for parties - because they will determine how lifetime Justices vote on the most controversial matters (e.g. abortions, women's rights, equal pay for equal work) which face the United States.
3
The ship that had the Robert court's legacy on it sailed away with Merrick Garland on it. It's not coming back.
17
One hopes that as he presides over this impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts will occasionally hark back to Trump’s characterization of him as “a disaster”. I know he can’t do much in this trial, but every little bit helps.
5
Will Chief Justice Roberts hold Senators in contempt of Congress for lying under oath? If yes, what is the penalty?
7
Ummm, impeachment by a jury of their Republican peers? Ahh, haha ha. Good one!
2
I’m a former independent, turned democrat, but I have confidence in Roberts when it comes to upholding the constitution. I find him apolitical. I hope he will ensure America gets a trial that’s apolitical, fair, constitutional & thorough without fanfare but doesn’t try the wrong person.
2
I think just a ceremonial position is stupid. I think he should be what he is the Top Chief Justice and be able to rule when the case comes to an impasse. His judgement should be held in the highest regard, and should stand. Just because another Chief Justice presided one way, does not mean he has to follow that.
1
The Supreme Court was fully, unabashedly committed to partisan warfare in November - December 2000 when the five conservative justices, led by Antonin Scalia, brazenly and incorrigibly overruled the Florida Supreme Court and their own purportedly unyielding states' rights principles because -- as I recall Sandra Day O'Connor being quoted -- they were determined that 'Al Gore can not become president,' even if it meant stopping the recount and overruling their own most sacred principles Scalia had long claimed were enshrined in the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. How different history might have been were it not for that open political, ideological warfare, not justice. Twenty years later, the beat goes on.
15
May Chief Justice Roberts be The Maestro, even as Trump and McConnell attempt to play him like a fiddle.
3
My recommendation for Justice Roberts is that he put any and all controversial motions to a vote by the Senate-that’s the only way to be non-partisan and avoid injecting his views into the process.
1
I doubt it would be non-partisan, but that is what the Constitution prescribes. The collective body of the Senate has full authority to decide all issues.
Why should we the people care about this ludicrous, kangaroo court? In an interview on Fox News on Thursday evening, Mr. McConnell said that there was “no chance” that the president would be removed from office and that he would follow Mr. Cipollone’s lead.
“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” Mr. McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.”
I do not understand GOP ethics at all nor do I understand their critical thinking process. Do they care at all about seeking truth?
5
Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have time to fuss with trump. I think Roberts and his court are more interested in overturning Roe, overturning Obergefell, giving more power to corporations, and just generally imposing a Catholic-flavored theocracy on the United States.
1
There's exactly NOTHING "perilous" about following one's oath to the Constitution of the United States.
Let that guide Roberts. There is only peril if he takes orders from a tyrant.
2
Justice Roberts is in a difficult position. One of the political parties will not be happy with the outcome of the impeachment trial and may accuse Justice Roberts of being biased. He is not in an enviable position and did not ask for this assignment. It fell into his lap. You have to feel sorry for him.
1
Yes, the role of John Roberts as Chief Justice is very risky.
Justice Roberts, You will surely relate to the following Biblical passages.
Isaiah 41:10 - “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
John 3: 16 - “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.”
Justice Roberts, May you find courage and conviction in your heart and mind.
1
@Hortencia That quotation makes no clear and concise sense, especially in this context.
Your own last sentence makes sense and is a lovely thing to wish and proffer support.
What do YOU get when you add these 2 lines together?
1. " . . . Chief Justice Roberts’s first official act will be to take an oath to “do impartial justice.”
2. "He will then ask senators to raise their hands and to make the same pledge."
The answer is:
. . . a Mitch McConnell sham.
Can this actually --- be allowed to happen?
1
Nice story, but why is the NYT treating this impeachment trial as though it's going to be anything but a farcical foregone conclusion? Isn't the more important message for the nation and for posterity that this President's impeachment is a complete miscarriage of justice by a broken, ineffectual Congress?
1
@Rob
Why?
Did you not see the damning evidence of Hill, Vindmin, Sondland, Yovanovitch and William Taylor?
Most of them were Trump appointees and confirmed under oath the allegations that Trump undertook the Zelensky shakedown.
The impeachment was credible.
The Senate trial is likely to be the farcical part.
The impeachment was very credible
1
"Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice"
Another garbage headline… I guess you used up 'struggling' describing the GOP Senators.
It's his job, there's nothing perilous about it… except that he won't execute it properly.
I know that the Times headline writer has to make this news exciting, but the horse has left the barn. Here are the signs of partisanship which have already damaged the Supreme Court:
-Bush v. Gore. (Stopping a recount on the basis of equal protection???)
-Citizens United (Allowing Unlimited Flows of Hidden Soft Money)
- Shelby County v. Holder (Nullifying a significant portion of the Voting Rights Act which had been approved by Congress just a few years prior)
- M cCutcheon v FEC (More money allowed into elections)
- Rucho v. Common Cause (Prohibiting the Federal Judiciary from ruling against gerrymandered maps)
-Merrick Garland's confirmation or lack thereof.
-
-Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation by Senators who represented fewer popular-votes than by Senators who didn't vote for him
7
This past December I wrote to Chief Justice Roberts and "demanded" that he make sure there was a fair trial and that Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell be required to recuse themselves. I wrote "...In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. This is laid out, in the United States Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 - Trial of Impeachment.
Your first order of business presiding over the Senate trial must be to mandate that McConnell and Graham recuse themselves as jurors and absent themselves from the proceedings entirely since they have both publicly prejudged the trial and admitted that they cannot [will not] be fair and impartial jurors despite the juror's oath that they will have to take.
If you deviate from the law, it’s over. Donald Trump will reign as “king” and will continue to dismantle our constitution. Just how long will it take him to decide he needs no legislative or judicial branches to rein him in? If you do not think it can happen, consider Germany and Adolf Hitler. It happened…And it can happen again. Only YOU can prevent that from happening."
Of course, I got no response but I had my say. His is a huge responsibility; I hope he's up to it.
4
Roberts has his first opportunity to question the process when senators are sworn in. He should require McConnell and Graham to recuse as they have already voiced pre- judged outcomes
8
So Trump will be tried by a Republican jury with a Republican judge. Why of course it will be impartial, why of course.
5
Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Clinton impeachment trial was just passing the time as window dressing, playing cards during breaks, and being overruled by the Senate in the few times he was given voice. Powerless due to Senate rules.
I certainly don't expect anything different in McConnell's theater. Send in the clowns.
5
I can only hope that Chief Justice Roberts rises to the occasion during the Senate Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. I know he is up against a political maelstrom but he must assert himself if McConnell departs from the sensibility if not the legality of the fundamentals of a trial. Roberts needs to represent the Supreme Court, not separate from this Senate Trial, but in all that it stands for, i.e., justice, constitutionality, fairness, allegiance to the law. The Supreme Court Justice must assert influence, in all that our Country of laws stands for, even though many assert it is only a political trial. Our Country depends on our judicial system, not only laws, but norms, ethics and common sense, and as is widely quoted, " the President is not above the law."
4
These are dangerous waters. I trust John Roberts to be ethical and fair, but I don’t know that he is wise. I hope for the Republic that he is.
3
Doesn’t matter. Unless the Senate specifically sets rules to give him specific powers that can’t be set aside by a subsequent vote, his role is entirely ceremonial. He might as well bring his phone and play Candy Crush for the entire proceeding.
Chief Justice Roberts should simply apply the most important rule required in any fair trial: impartiality. Any favoritism would transform the process in a farse with daring consequences for the credibility of the entire system.
1
It’s a life appointment. What’s perilous about that?
1
Repeating (slightly modified) my comment to a related article:
One indication of whether Trump will get a real trial is how Justice Roberts dresses. At the last impeachment "trial" (perhaps I should say "circus," rather), judge Rhenquist signaled the buffoonery that was to ensue by attaching obscenely tacky gold stripes to his robe, which he admitted he copied from watching a Gilbert and Sullivan production. Rhenquist went on to confirm he delighted in the spectacle and pageantry of the once-in-a-career theatrical opportunity more than truth and justice (and of course the "rule of law") themselves.
Justice Roberts' recent eloquent admonition that nobody, not even the president, is "above the law," and sincere lamentation on the decline of our civic life, reflecting and reinforcing deterioration of civic education and respect for it, should hearten us: We can expect substance and due solemnity to trump vulgar, crass, meretricious spectacle, maybe in a sense even "trumping Trump himself."
Our Constitutional system reposes a sacred trust in Justice Roberts, with our liberties, the integrity and viability of our Constitutional system, project and experiment hanging in the balance, just like the liberties sustaining and sustained by it. Justice Roberts: Please do not less us down! So far, we are very encouraged by your words and obvious commitment to the institutions now calling upon you to protect them!
7
It's incredible to think that over some 250 years legislators have not created legislation to more specifically define the rules of Impeachment in both the House and the Senate. That is called kicking the can down The Milky Way.
1
'Reason and decorum'? Didn't they fly out the window when Kavanaugh pitched his tantrum, and got confirmed anyway?
What about when Clarence Thomas conveniently forgot to mention on his disclosure that the Kochs paid his wife $600K in 'speaker's and consultant's fees'--and got a do over? And didn't recuse himself on Citizens United?
For that matter, I'd love to see Roberts' Swiss bank account when he sold his country down the river in that decision.
5
If the Chief Justice is going to “maintain the public’s trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law” then he should force McConnell to recuse himself.
4
This is only hard if you have no integrity. This is only hard if you have no class, and this is especially hard if you have no sense of decency or fairness . Otherwise this should be very easy for Chief Justice Roberts....
1
"...signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court."
Are you serious? We crossed that bridge back in 2000, when a partisan 5-4 majority appointed George W. Bush President.
5
I am on one side of the great divide, and there is nothing that Robert's will be able to do that will assuage my feeling of injustice and my anger at the deplorable fascist right. And those on the other side feel as strongly about us communist snowflake lefties. In this we agree. And even our awareness of this truth does not change a thing about our mutual hatred. This divided house will fall, welcome to "interesting times". Irreconcilable differences. May we divorce without bloodshed.
I wonder if McConnell let Roberts know that Supreme Court justices can also be impeached. Just as a reminder.
1
Trump is going to attack Roberts relentlessly. Roberts will get the Mueller treatment. Doesn't matter that he is a Co equal branch of govt. Trump has no idea what that means.
1
Why is Trump’s Impeachment for perilous duty Chief Justice John Roberts? - Is he about to be found out?
1
Of course, because we all think the Supreme Court is so nonpartisan and in touch with the realities of the 99%. Better yet, the oligarchy has no sway over them whatsoever. Sometime I really have to question my NY Times subscription. You guys have really never recovered from the Iraq War debacle and getting hoodwinked by Bush Jr.
2
Perilous duty is just drama trolling.
The man is Chief Justice for life.
He will do whatever he is of a mind to.
Based on history he will give a sop to the non fascists and otherwise put his cult demands above the judicial power which will still infuriate the Trump followers just as so far he has stuck to the cult line in the Court with an occasional sop to democracy that infuriates infuriates the right wing Roman Catholic cult on the Court.
And the Times will have plenty of stories about how dramatic this all is. But the fix is in.
7
Being a trial judge is no easy matter. I am sure Roberts never presided over a trial as a judge, but did he even try any cases as a lawyer? If not, he is in for a challenging time.
As soon as mcconnell swears the oath to "do impartial justice", Schumer must immediately bring against him charges of perjury, contempt of congress, and subversion of the Constitution -- reading into the official record the numerous public statements he has made -- and move for his immediate impeachment and trial prior to the commencement of trump*'s trial.
This legal maneuver, prompting a ruling bu CJ Roberts, presiding, would be a good first volley to let Roberts know the import of his assignment, and how history -- and justice -- will judge HIM.
5
This is a test of our constitution, or democracy and our system of government. There is no AI here, only humans, but humans at the TOP of our Justice system, judges of the Supreme Court of our Land. I can only hope they don't let me down, and let this be a fair trial with witnesses and testimony as any other trial would be. Partisanship, needless to say, has no place here.
2
A less timid article exploring what he could do to ensure that the hearing had some legitimacy would be much more interesting, e.g. permit witnesses to be called etc.
2
Because of "Citizens United," Roberts forfeited credibility as a legal analyst. He failed to consider simple cause and effect, and legal bribery was established for the wealthy class.
3
Justice Roberts must know that the senate trial is about nothing less than the rule of law in our country. He has no moral choice but to defend out constitution and our courts.
Trump asked a foreign power to intervene in our election, breaking several federal laws and violating his oath of office. He covered it up, lying to the public and the press and defying legal subpoenas. Yet he remains in office with the help of a corrupt Attorney General and a senate leader who has taken partisanship to unheard-of new levels.
Mitch McConnell has said publicly he has no intention of doing fair and impartial justice, as the constitution requires. The founding fathers never contemplated this level of corruption, something more to be expected from organized criminals than American lawmakers.
Yet here we are, and Justice Roberts represents our last best hope that our constitution and our courts may yet survive the Trump presidency. God help us.
1
If Trump is innocent, as he claims, he should permit his advisors to testify to the information they have proving his innocence. The documents that prove his innocence should be presented. Without that, it is a political joke, not a trial. Thinking people will not accept that he is innocent without a presentation of evidence. His name will not be cleared. He will be suspect for the rest of his life and well into the future where history will demand, "WHY?"
2
I'm sorry, but I don't see where Mr. Roberts is going to have any difficulty at all doing what the Republican party wants him to do in this impeachment. His legacy? Overrated for a lifetime appointment job, and he is for sure more afraid of blowback from conservative extremists if he manages to let Trump get removed.
As has been mentioned, I don't think there is any great fear on the bench today of being thought a partisan - hey, it's justice as viewed from one side of the court, good enough. Majority rules, and all that.
No, I think it plays out like this: Senate decides on rules, with 51%. Roberts stays silent. Discussion ensues for a few days, and then Mitch simply says, I don't see anything here - I call for a vote to dismiss for lack of evidence and because I need my guy to stay where he is for a while. Roberts stutters something, Mitch says, overruled, and that is that. End of Impeachment, and nobody got dirty. Yay for the current majority!
Umm, could we then Impeach Mr. Roberts? No. Could the media play both sides, hero and partisan hack - of course, no matter what happens that will be the play. Will Mr. Roberts or his fellows suffer any pain whatsoever for the sham? No. Sticks and stones, but he gets to sit for life, so it just doesn't matter how poor a job he may do - we are not expecting anything other than what we have seen.
As Citizens United portends, there is a whole lot of Speech headed to Roberts and friends after this little mess is cleaned up.
1
Perilous? That's funny. This court has little impartiality (or honor) left to feel any peril, stacked as it is by conservative partisans. It is the Roberts SC that saw an individual right in the 2nd Amendment (for the first time in 200 years) - despite a previous SC Chief Justice (Warren Burger) declaring such an interpretation as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud." It is the Roberts SC that is overseeing Trump's financial trials, and we can guess which way that's going to go.
And so while leading Senators such as McConnell and Graham have already said they have no intention of being impartial jurors (or even really holding a trial), and even though they will take an oath to do so, this whole thing is a charade on the Republican side. And Roberts is a true red Republican. So it is funny to think of Roberts, or any of the conservative Justices, feeling any sense of peril. More like a picnic.
3
The SC is already very damaged by its dumb Bush/Gore, Citizens United, and civil rights enforcement decisions. Roberts has a chance here to do the right thing and not drag his SC into further ignominy. But I’m not optimistic because he is extremely partisan and loyal to his Republican Tribe since he was spawned in the Reaganite Test Tube.
2
Nobody in American government is as "legacy minded" as the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
We name court eras after them.
The Warren Court.
The Rehnquist Court.
The notorious Taney Court.
The Roberts Court.
The prior Chief Justice, who presided over Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, even designed a Gilbert & Sullivan style robe for himself. That is how image-conscious these people are.
Roberts will not do anything to muck up his history.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
Somehow I just can’t see him worrying about that kind of stuff, he has already sullied his name. While folks are hoping he will show impartiality, I will be impressed by anything rising above indifference, He is set for life, and principles are well and fine but not necessary anymore, this will be his last job. I don’t think the Dems have the stomach to impeach him at this point, he knows it, why rock the boat with messy testimonies or evidence when you can just go along with what your bosses want, and do no more than what is expected - nothing.
There is nothing hard about it. You do the right thing. Trump has committed high crimes and everybody knows it. You simply state the obvious.
8
It seems to me like his role should be easy and clear cut: Just do the right thing, guided by our Constitution..... Like a neurosurgeon’s or an astronaut’s job seems impossible to everyone else, but is simple as getting out of bed to the expert him/her self
5
So the Chief Justice shall preside? Nah, more like he shall abide.
3
Professor Bowman has nothing to worry about. Mitch McConnell has long since obliterated the institutional legitimacy of the court.
1
He has a lifetime appointment. He just needs to do what’s fair and right. Is that so hard.
1
As with everyone "touched" by Trump, the Chief Justice will be tainted by association with Trump and McConnell.
If, as indicated, he "presides" and not much else, he will have presided over McConnell's sham of a "trial."
That stench will cling to Roberts for the rest of his life and very probably long afterwards.
In Roberts case, I think that's a shame.
3
I can't wait. Chief Justice Roberts will be a great umpire.
2
I think the Chief Justice needs to establish early on that this impeachment is valid and that it is a very serious thing not to be brushed away or taken lightly. If the Senate Republicans we’re treating impeachment seriously then Roberts would have it easy instead Roberts may have a key role in determining the future of our country.
3
The lawsuits and trials to get a ruling on the issue could take years, and the public memory does not stretch beyond a few months. And the point is to get the man out of office before he violates our democracy again, before his Russian buddies have a chance to grease his skids and steal yet another election. Besides, once he is a civilian again, there is a good chance he can be arrested and thrown in jail. LOCK HIM UP!
The Supremes, by preventing Congress from "following the money" by gazing at the Presidents tax returns, have already declared their true intentions.
I am told that it took five Supremes to put a stay on the Court of Appeals decision in Trump versus Committee on Oversight, while it only takes four Supremes to grant a Writ of Certiorari.
The Court of Appeals decision has been stayed, for quite a long period of time.
NYTimes readers are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about Chief Justice Roberts.
Roberts will show us whether the SCOTUS is fair and unswayed by political tribalism. This is a big test for the SCOTUS itself, whether American citizens will continue to have any faith at all in that branch of the government.
3
How difficult will it be for Chief Justice Roberts to rule consistently in favor of President Trump's objections, and tilt the entire proceeding against the impeachment articles? Take a look at the Robert 5 consistent rulings in favor of Trump's assertion of unlimited executive power.
1
He is not going to rule on anything. If someone has an objection, the Majority Leader calls for a vote. It is no different from any other Senate proceeding.
@Michael Blazin "The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide."
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate;
The Supreme court was already damaged when Obama chose to deride them publicly over a decision he didn't like in front of them and the whole congress during his state of the union address a few years ago. He was president and protected by free speech but that didn't make his national denouncement of them anything the less than shabby and petulant. And amazingly no democrats made a peep about it, no disagreement. So this article is more than a bit disingenuous and a few years late. The court has already been publicly trashed and still survived.
2
“...will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court”. She really needed to win!
This is one more significant result of our educational system having abandoned teaching Civics as an essential part of the curriculum. Americans no longer understand the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court, especially the underpinnings that legitimate the power of a small group with lifetime appointments to overrule the decisions of elected members of Congress and an elected President. Instead, everyone across the political spectrum simply wants the Court to accomplish for them either what they have not been able to accomplish politically or to do what cannot be supported by the Constitution but they nonetheless deem desirable.
1
I believe the Chief Justice knows that this impeachment fiasco is simply a political sham.
What will be most difficult for Justice Robert’s during this travesty will be keeping a straight face.
1
Yes, amazingly he holds the exact same opinions as you in all matters.
I trust Roberts to quash any childish attempts at partisanship by McConnell and his rabid cronies.
1
I think the Times needs to do an article on how the impeachment trial works. People think that the trial uses the typical rules of court that normal trials use. It does not. The rules are those promulgated by the Senate.
The trial rules adopted by the Senate are interior to that body. They are not subject to judicial interpretation.
This leaves Roberts with the task of enforcing rules adopted by the Senate. While he can be asked for an recommend a course of action, the decision to take that course of action lies with a vote of the Senate, not Roberts.
3
What do get when you add these 2 lines together?
1. " . . . Chief Justice Roberts’s first official act will be to take an oath to “do impartial justice.”
2. "He will then ask senators to raise their hands and to make the same pledge."
The answer is:
. . . a Mitch McConnell sham.
Can this actually --- be allowed to happen?
6
This is indeed perilous times for conservatives. Any step out of rank and file leads to twitter assaults, humiliating name-calling and vicious lies. For elected officials it means Trumpian challengers. For veterans it means a coward label. For our institutions it means dismantlement. Can we even trust the weather bureau anymore?
5
@Dr. Girl As long as you don't mind the illustrious President being the final arbiter on the weather and can overlook the fact that the qualified meteorologists can be over-ruled with a sharpie.
the court, since Gore VS Bush, at the least, has been seen as fully political and corrupt, in service to empire and money. Souter almost quit after this decision, fully understanding the irrevocable stain the court inflicted on itself. Since then, Citizens United, revocation of the main provision in the voting rights act and claiming a private right to own guns, has only deepened this notion. It certainly doesn't help that we have a slave-based electoral college and an unrepresentative senate. And now to Trump, grifter-in-chief.
7
Is Roberts owned by Trump's white supremacists? We will soon find out.
3
I wouldn't panic (yet).
The fact that the Constitution doesn't spell out the duties of the chief justice for an impeachment trial would seem to indicate to me that the Constitution is alive and conforms to the needs of the governed. This is good for all of us.
If that be the case, then there's much flexibility in how the Constitution is read and interpreted.
You might argue that what it says is what it means, yet look how the second amendment has been read and misread over the years. Today's gun rights in no way correlate to what is in that amendment.
I would see the entire impeachment process demonstrative that the Constitution does work and is somewhat relevant to our lives. It's a baseline, a starting point.
1
I had the same optimistic thoughts about the Mueller Report finally injecting honesty and reality into this nut- house. Not holding my breath this time. I think we’re doomed.
2
"But the founding charter says no more, and just what role the chief justice is meant to perform has proved baffling."
Baffling? Really? Given that one of the duties of the Vice President is to preside over the Senate, including in the impeachment trial of any official other than the POTUS. This is presumably because the VP has a clear conflict of interest (even more prior to the 12 amendment when the office went to the runner up). Roberts is merely filling in for Pence. That's it he's; not running the show. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. McConnell will be running the show and all decisions will be made by majority vote. Roberts is window dressing.
2
The Supreme Court has already lost its institutional legitimacy by having on the bench justices who lied under oath to get there, and a having corrupt political party that put them there.
7
"At the start of the trial, which could be as soon as Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts’s first official act will be to take an oath to “do impartial justice.” He will then ask senators to raise their hands and to make the same pledge."
As others have noted, the opening oath will immediately reveal the farcical and hypocritical nature of the proceedings. That's going to be a difficult obstacle to overcome.
If Roberts had the requisite integrity and courage, he would at the outset ask the senators who have already declared their intent to acquit to either recuse themselves from the proceedings or recant their earlier declarations of bias. Roberts lacks the spine to do that, but that is what the situation actually demands.
As for Roberts's concerns about maintaining judicial impartiality, that is a rather recent development. For most of his career Roberts has been happy to function as a partisan hack. There is no other way to explain his enthusiastic support of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United or Shelby v. Holder, which were stark exercises in shameless right-wing politics.
Trump is the inevitable outcome of the degradation of American government into ruthless gutter partisanship. Roberts now seems to dimly appreciate that the Supreme Court on his watch has become part of the problem and would like to dial the rancor back in the interests of salvaging his endangered reputation. Unfortunately, he has seen the flicker of light too late to be of any real use.
2
Any senator can challenge another senator’s fitness to participate. The presiding officer would then refer the issue to the entire Senate for a vote. The Senate is not going to disqualify any sitting members by majority vote.
The upcoming impeachment trial is to be governed by the rule of politics, above all else. In some ways, it has more in common with a popular election than a criminal trial. The oath taken by the various participants to do "impartial justice" means that they will use their best efforts to make the decision that they, in good faith, believe will be in the best interests of our country, all things considered. That's far different from the oath taken by jurors in a criminal trial, which, even though similar on its face, means they will follow the law and the instructions of the judge in rendering their decision. Although the Chief Justice, in theory, will preside at this impeachment trial, he is powerless to rule in any manner that contravenes the express will of a majority of the Senators. So, let's not get carried away with the importance of the Chief Justice to this proceeding. And let's also stop acting as if the Senators were jurors, because they're not.
2
If one has any doubts about the impeachment trial being fair, all one needs to do is read through all the comments written in response to this piece. The classic notion that justice is blind has been disproved by many of the instances and examples of court rulings mentioned below. There is little Justice Roberts can do to dispel this view because we have already seen his bias in his opinions.
2
Personally, I don't believe Roberts to be a man overly concerned with SCOTUS actually being non-political.
I do believe Roberts to be a man very concerned that his reputation APPEAR to be non-political.
Roberts will throw a couple small wins to the DEMS, then fade into the background and let McConnell do his thing.
8
Of more importance, to me, is how the Supreme Court rules in the 'Bridgegate' case.
Baroni and Kelly intentionally blocked a major highway. Their crimes put the public at risk. If their convictions are tossed then a politician can do anything they want based on politics and so long as they don't make money off of it it's cool.
Such a ruling would allow people like Trump to destroy our country and way of life.
2
As he is by far the most reactionary and politically motivated Chief Justice in the history of the Republic. i have no faith thatthhe Chief Justice will be nothing more than the political apparatchik that he is and will be in lock step with his Republican colleagues. To think anything else would be folly.
2
In the entire history of the Republic? Somehow I doubt that given some of the rulings over the last 220 years. But if you have a doctorate in constitutional history, I would defer to your scholarship. If not, I will assume you know nothing about the issue.
Since you didn’t even get the age of the Republic/time since the first Supreme Court was seated, I’ll assume you know nothing at all.
Seem like the Democrat senators are more prejudiced than Republicans. None of the Democrats are expected to vote to acquit. Some Republicans may vote to convict. The whole presumption that the senators will be impartial is a farce perpetrated on this process.
1
Roberts will do nothing in particular, and do it very two-facedly.
1
Too late..it is already damaged (the reputation of the scotus).
I am really liking Bloomberg in this race. It draws such a contrast to fake debt-financed billionaires like Trump.
His undisclosed financial obligations to foreign parties will eventually come to light and at that point his behavior will make a lot of sense. And those who defend him will look like the biggest fools in History.
1
The USA Supreme Court is already _deeply_ partisan along party lines. That is not news to anyone including Roberts. Roberts will play up the ceremonial nature of his role and practice his stony poker face in the bathroom mirror for a few nights. He has no other option.
1
Oh please. That majority of right-wingers lost any claim to impartiality years ago.
2
This article has a lot of speculation and conjecture and was not labelled as an editorial.
Roberts is a dangerous man for Trump. If I was Trump, I would not be tweeting about him or calling him a disaster. His conduct could determine Trump's fate and, as they say, the role of the chief justice is not well defined. Trump is a clown, Roberts already knows that and with a lifetime appointment, he has no reason to go along with the party line, especially because the interests of the real conservative movement (as opposed to the radical right-wing revolutionaries) are not served by Trump. Applying pressure on Roberts with idiotic tweets is sure to backfire and might make it impossible for some GOP senators to vote to keep Trump in office. But this is how it's going to go and we will get an idiotic tweet galore. What will Roberts do?
2
Maybe it's time for the Robertses to take that world cruise they've always dreamed about
Damage the reputation of the SCOTUS? Train has long left that stable. See under: Garland, Kavanaugh.
6
Roberts is not a Trump guy or a Democrat. And he knows the result is foreordained. He will act with the dignity required but will seek to move things along toward the inevitable result. The Chief Justice is busy and he doesn’t like wasting time when the outcome is more than obvious
@michjas :
If he does this, he is 0residing over and condoning a sham trial. Which I expect he will do.
4
The Supreme Court is already damaged by partisanship.
6
If he's replacing the vice president, then he has the same ability to vote to break ties, the rules being the same for one presiding officer as for another.
1
No partisianship in the House though. Adam Schiff ran the hearings just like he would want his own mother treated.
It is only my hope that Adam will have an oppourtunity to explain his role in this comedy.
2
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman The Republicans had every opportunity to defend Trump but they and Trump were both scared of what their witnesses would say.
3
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman
Ah yeas.
If the law is against you argue the facts.
If the facts are against you argue the law.
If the law and the facts are against you, yell and pound on the table.
Trump's first attempt to prevent an impeachment was to provide the redacted transcript of his "perfect" phone call. That redacted transcript was a full confession and proof of guilt that gave Pelosi no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry. And since he confessed and provided the proof of his guilt the only possible result is that he be impeached.
Now the only honest result is for him to be found guilty and removed by the Senate. Again because he confessed and provided the proof of his guilt himself. No one but Trump had anything to do with this impeachment case coming into being and getting to this point.
5
The job of the chief justice is not to sit in judgement but to let the jurors decide. I am confident that Chief justice John G. Roberts Jr will act impartially and constitutionally. Fear mongering that Roberts will be partial is unjustified. That is not his record.
2
I hope Justice Roberts is up to the work of maintaining a non-partisan position in these hearings. Given the recent scandalous behavior of our Senate Republican leadership in their confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, I doubt that he will be. I think our government has been wholly taken over by monied interests who have no problem subverting the Constitution or the law if it will make them a dime.
2
John Roberts will put The Constitution first and Trump second.
Trump's exposed, vulnerable and John Roberts will have little choice other than to hear the subpoenaed testimony and documents that Trump's been hiding. Justice Roberts holds the law above all else. Bank on it.
Too much media, not enough justice. Unfortunately, there is little honestly left in the Senate, as without truth and honesty there will never be justice, never the truth revealed to the American people, or the world. And so the U.S. gov't will follow the steps of justice with its partisan GOP Senate and Trump will be forgiven for all his sins. Tragic.
1
The press inadvertently misleads Americans when it refers to an impeachment trial. Trump has already been impeached and there is no undoing it. The trial will determine only whether he is convicted and removed. Apparently too few - including the accused - understand this.
5
No, President Trump has not been impeached because the articles have not yet been sent to the Senate. (They may never be, depending on tomorrows vote).
This is the learned opinion of Nancy Pelosi's constitutional expert Noah Feldman.
The Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments" under Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution but it goes on to state that when the President of the United States is put on trial, the Chief Justice "shall preside". If Chief Justice Roberts interprets the words "shall preside" to mean he should be a mere procedural adornment, rubber stamping whatever Senate leadership decides to do (or not do), he will nullify a "check" clearly intended by the framers, at the expense of the SCOTUS, the judiciary as a whole and his personal legacy.
The Founders did not intend for the Chief Justice to be a check on anything. He is the presiding officer so that a senator does not have to fill that routine position and can be a juror. Only a sitting Senator is qualified to preside over the Senate except in this rare case. The back up has to be the senior official of the uninvolved co-equal branch of government. He is not there to instruct the Senate in anything. Chief Justice Roberts would never presume he had that authority. By black letter law in Constitution, the collective Senate has full authority over every detail. No exceptions.
Chief Justice Roberts may be a 'Conservative',but he is also an institutionalist. As such I am hoping that he will have little patience for theatrics coming from the likes of Jim Jordan should he be part of the Republicans Team .
I am also hoping that Chief Justice Roberts informs Mr Jordan in no uncertain terms to wear a suit Jacket . There is not much that can be done in terms of Mr Jordan embarrassing himself but he should not be be allowed to embarrass the Institution, and needs to be told to dress the part.
1
Lol, not really . Just don’t take part in the coverup.
1
Kennedy and SCOTUS lost any chance of respect or from me or even a whiff of objectivity and decency when they irreversibly damaged our democracy with Citizens United. They’re an embarrassment to justice.
19
@Brooklyn Dog Geek Ain't it the truth! Unlimited Union $money$ in our elections.
1
This is one more significant result of our educational system having abandoned teaching Civics as an essential part of the curriculum. Americans no longer understand the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court, especially the underpinnings that legitimate the power of a small group with lifetime appointments to overrule the decisions of elected members of Congress and an elected President. Instead, everyone across the political spectrum simply wants the Court to accomplish for them either what they have not been able to accomplish politically or to do what cannot be supported by the Constitution but they nonetheless deem desirable.
10
CJ Roberts signed on to the job. If he sees Trump's trial as personally partisan perilous he should resign and let RGB take the reins. She has a talent for seeing clearly and concisely what is at stake.
CJR will be a hero or a hack and deliver a strong opinion on 'executive power and privilege' that will last for hundreds of years. It's not difficult to see the difference between right and wrong in presidential behavior.
People that are excessively partisan are generally worried about reelection and job security, (or like Trump avoiding prison). And maybe continuous power. CJR hasn't got those worries.
2
‘Signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court’? Is it not already so? I find it insightful to look at the Segal-Cover score, listing nominees from 1937 on to the present. It was introduced by its authors in their 1989 article ‘Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’, which attempts to ‘measure the ‘perceived qualifications (from 0 as unqualified to 1 as extremely qualified) and ideology’ (from 0 as most conservative and 1 to most liberal) of nominees to the US Supreme Court’. There are 5 Republican nominated and the 4 Democrat nominated judges currently serving on the Court. Utilizing this scoring, which strongly correlates with the subsequent votes of the justices, the Republican judges scored an average of .112 on Ideology, vs. the Democrat judges at .64625. On Qualifications the Republican judges scored an average of .705, vs. the Democrat judges at .77125. Justice Ginsberg was considered most qualified with a perfect 1, and Trump’s nominee Justice Kavanaugh, the least with .400.
9
The Supreme Court is already damaged. One Justice has a stolen seat and one was not vetted. There is now the argument that the Court has to be fixed. There is only one way to do it, if the Court starts protecting Trump as though he was not a liar and a cheat and was willing to start a war to enhance his chance of winning reelection and as not invited Russia to participate in our election.
Even if the Democrats flip the Senate and take the White House, a radical right wing Court could block the changes that the public want and deserves and Democrats are promising.
The number of Justices on the Sup. Ct. is determined by statue. To fix the Court Congress can create 2 or possibly 4 new lifetime seats, while passing a Constitutional amendment to fix the number of seats to no more than 13 and limiting all new Justices to a term of 18 years.
Should the Court make clearly partisan decisions on Trump litigation, the Democratic presidential contenders should be rendering their opinions on this form of court reform. I don't think that Biden would agree which is why I do not support him although I will vote for him if he is the candidate.
7
All these posts represent a tempest in a teapot. The Chief Justice has no meaningful role. The trial will be conducted the way 51 Senators decide how it will be conducted. As provide for in the Constitution.
5
The trial will be a sham. Roberts will not even try to make it a real trial. Our Constitution is flawed, but nobody talks about fixing it. Actually, our whole system is not working and it is long past time for version 2.0.
4
While I do love some of the most optimistic "Times Pick" selections, my only thought is "Really?"
There is some very good news for Chief Justice Roberts in all of this.
First and foremost, all he has to do to look "judicial" is to not stick his neck out too far. McConnell has the critical votes and nothing new will alter those votes. I even suggest that Roberts can insist on hearing from witnesses and not get a scratch.
Second, the limelight of an Impeachment Trial will be a hefty news-media distraction to other vital and crucial judicial matters that the high-court will be weighing. Focus on the Impeachment in one hand, strike down other abuses with the other.
Something tells me that Robert's will enjoy the respite.
Ironic, isn’t it, that a guy who has never tried a case as a lawyer or presided over a criminal trial as a judge, has the responsibility to oversee an impeachment trial.
1
Not really because impeachment proceedings in the Senate is not really a trial. People keep commenting like it is. It isn’t.
1
The number one test of Roberts is the recusal/disqualification of all of the Senators whom have declared that they have already decided the verdict in favor of Trump some even stating they will refuse to consider any evidence. This includes McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Kennedy (LA).
If that doesn't happen first thing, everything that follows is a sham.
If that happens the rest of the procedures should follow normal federal courtroom procedures. The Federal Rules of Evidence should apply. The defense cannot be allowed to turn the process into a propaganda battle by trying to call sham witnesses in attempts to animate the propaganda stories they have invented to cast doubt on the House case for impeachment. That impeachment was caused by the president's own move to head off an impeachment inquiry, the redacted transcript of the phone call. It turned out to be a confession to everything in the complaint and proof that the president had offered a bribe to the president of Ukraine. There is no other source for this impeachment than the president himself. He confessed and provided the proof of what he had done. Pelosi had no choice and neither does anyone else who is honest.
7
One would certainly hope that Roberts' statement that there are no Republican or Democratic Judges, just Judges, will hold true and that he will do his best to direct this trial as one would in court: THOROUGHLY AND FAIRLY.
What that treasonous McConnell wants should be irrelevant - he, and his fellow Republicans that have already declared Trump exonerated should be forced to recuse themselves as jurors for obvious reasons.
4
I don't know how Roberts can swear to do "impartial justice," and then allow McConnell and the rule of flaw gang to proceed with a predetermined, partial, and clearly ridiculous proceeding that damages any oath, democracy, and the Chief Justice (and thereby the Supreme Court).
If Roberts tries to play the hand that he has no role in the proceeding other than to open and close the activity, he will be dumping his Court tenure and reputation into the garbage.
In order to maintain the independence of the Court, Roberts will have assert himself into the process in some way that is more than ceremonial. What that will be I don't know, but as the saying goes, you can't get a little bit pregnant. He either stands for what's right and protects the Court and Constitution, or we can mark the impeachment as the clear point where our democracy died.
I'm hoping Roberts chooses correctly.
3
@MrDeepState
It isn't as if any republican cares what we look like to the world. They only care that they get paid and get to harm people they can look down on and put nasty labels on.
@MrDeepState
It's not McConnell's fault that the House rushed the process. There was nothing stopping them from taking the Executive to court to obtain the documents and testimony they initially asked for. That they chose to vote for impeachment without them is a clear admission that they are not necessary. The Senate's only responsibility is to evaluate what the House sends him.
"Chief Justice John Roberts’s role at an impeachment trial may be mostly ceremonial, but signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court."
Trouble is, any rulings in favor of Republican motions will automatically be seen as "partisan." The best thing Roberts can do to avoid the partisan label is to rule in favor in favor of the Democrats 100% of the time.
The Supreme Court relies on precedent, except in the rare occasions when it sets it. I expect Roberts will model his conduct on Rehnquist's, which is to say he will "do nothing in particular, and do it very well."
1
For crying out loud, Trump wanted Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice - an incredibly powerful job for life.
Does anyone really and truly believe he could NOT lean in favor of Trump rather than against him?
Seriously?
If they believe that, then they probably believe the Moon is made of green cheese.
2
@Marge Keller
Why should he give any special consideration to Trump? Yes, Trump nominated him. But he has life tenure, and Trump can't fire him, so he is free to do whatever he wants.
1
@Marge Keller
I am not sure what you are going on about.
Robert's was appointed as Chief Justice by George W Bush.
From wikipedia- On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy that would be created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts was the first Supreme Court nominee since Stephen Breyer in 1994. Bush announced Roberts's nomination in a live, nationwide television broadcast from the East Room of the White House at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005, while Roberts's confirmation was still pending before the Senate. Shortly thereafter, on September 5, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and announced Roberts's new nomination to the position of Chief Justice.[39] Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts's confirmation hearings to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October.
1
@GMooG "Yes, Trump nominated him. "
In what universe? In his bizarro universe, perhaps. Here on Earth, it was w. who nominated him!
What is really on trial for the world to see in the handling of the Trump impeachment in the Senate by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is the integrity of the United States of America as a viable model of democracy--or not.
7
Roberts is in a no-win situation. Either he treats the trial as a legal proceeding, administering the oath to support the constitution to the senators, whether he allows challenges to various senators as biased, whether he rules on subpoenas and testimony, whether he insists on civility and rules senators who engage in shouting and name calling out of order, under threat of exclusion. If he chooses this path the Republicans, and the tweeter-in-chief will excoriate him and overrule his rulings.
Or he simply sits and watches McConnell and the Republicans make it a clown show. If he chooses this path the public will see him as ineffective and the Supreme Court as irrelevant.
In either case the importance and dignity of the Supreme Court will be forever tarnished.
1
"Signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court"???? How many more signs do you need that the Supreme Court is as partisan as any other branch of government?
12
John Roberts is neither fair nor impartial. He is a very articulate hack. I guess some senator should have asked him what kind of umpire he was; a pitcher's umpire, a hitter's umpire, an American League Umpire, or a National League umpire, as all have different strike zones - because of their prejudices.
1
Not as perilous as it may seem. I think Chief Justice Roberts is ready for this.
2
Chief Justice Roberts' distinguished career does not include sitting in or presiding over even one trial. This impeachment trial is a terrible place to learn how to be a trial judge. I suspect he will be completely run over by the Republicans. What a disaster.
4
He simply has to remember that he is beholden to the GOP, and they serve the King.
5
@Technic Ally
He has life tenure. He is beholden to no one.
1
This headline is insane. Anyone who believes that the SCOTUS is not a partisan arm of the Republican party has been living under a rock. Starting with Bush vs Gore, then Citizens United, then Republicans cheated the system to steal their last appointment. This institution is broken like the rest of America's false democracy.
24
Are you daft? Please. The Chief Justice is bought and paid for by the Federalist Society. The ONLY goal he has is to continue to please his master's by doing the GOP'S budding. Stop all this hand wringing.
4
Let me see if I get this. Republicans are a majority in the Senate. It requires two thirds majority to actually convict Trump. And yet, if Trump is not convicted, the NYT will hold chief Justice Roberts responsible.
Is the NYT capable of putting aside its biases for even ONE moment?
Don't get me wrong. I wish Trump would go away. Global warming is the big issue of our time, and Trump is totally incapable of addressing it - he does not even want to. So it would be nice to have someone else in the WH next January.
Still, dumping one's disappointment - that he is still around - on Chief Justice Roberts seems like the silliest move possible.
1
I imagine that in this instance Roberts need only support the Republicans by keeping his role minimal, with the ostensible rationale that he is respecting the Senate’s constitutional powers as the trial body in impeachment. The more difficult challenge will come with impeachment of a Democratic President by a Republican House and a trial in a Democratic Senate. To meet Republican expectations, Roberts would then have to take a more active part in supporting the prosecution by a GOP minority, and that change in stance would require some work to explain in order to maintain plausible judicial independence. Considering how in past decades right wing jurists have paid tribute to judicial restraint while practicing results-oriented activism, I have no doubt Roberts can reshape the Chief Justice’s role in impeachment trials in whatever way circumstances, and his Republican patrons, dictate.
3
Much has been made about Senator McConnel's arrangements for the up coming impeachment trial- if it happens. But I like to think that Justice Roberts will truly preside over the trial, gavel at the ready, as any judge would preside over their own court. "To preside" means to be in charge, to be the one in authority. And if that is the case, McConnel's arrangements may be swept aside --because he's not the one in authority over the trial.
4
Read the Constitution. The Senate has complete and total authority over all procedures, votes and issues. The Chief Justice’s role is no different than the senator that presides over a normal session. He is only there to allow all Senators to participate. The Senate itself resolves all points of procedure and in this matter, it will do likewise. Expect the Majority Leader to call for many votes if issues occur.
1
We either have the rule of law in this country or we don't.
Mr. Trump and his enablers, congressional and appointed, have crowbarred a huge space between the two conditions. Justice Roberts will essentially decide which wins: the rule of law as we used to know it, or the GOP "law for rulers".
A note on the stripes: I think there were four on one sleeve, five on the other. Somehow one judge with nine stripes looks like he's showing rank, unlike the idea of 9 judges each wearing 8 stripes, which might symbolize the other justices.
2
Justice Roberts actions should be evaluated through the prism of whether serious revision to the makeup of the court is warranted. Democratic candidates have excellent suggestions for making the court more democratic. Should Roberts let McConmell run the show, remaking the court will have a perfect argument for change.
5
“How would a senator feel about overruling a judgment on the merits by the chief justice?” Professor Campbell asked. “I think ‘hesitant’ would be the adjective I’d use.”
I beg to differ. Given the partisanship we have seen in the house inquiry, the refusal to call additional witnesses even in the face of Bolton's offer of additional information not already presented, and the promise from McConell to adhere to the Trump narrative, I don't expect that there will be any hesitancy to overrule the chief justice if that is what is required to steamroll the impeachment process to the desired Republican outcome. I hope Roberts has a strong backbone and a willingness to do more than "nothing in particular". He appears to be the only thing standing between us and systemic failure of the constitutional protections against a future dictator / king implemented by the founders.
4
A Senator, to preserve distribution of powers, would tend to overrule any judgement by the judiciary to interfere with the prerogatives of the Senate. Chief Justice Roberts understands that simple situation better than most commenters here. He will simply translate any call for a ruling into a vote of the body. He would not presume to tie their hands.
1
By and large we are such a divided country right now, it’s not reasonable that accessing Chief Justice Roberts’ performance in the upcoming Senate trial of the impeached Trump would be/ could be impartial. It is not just strong opposed political views that are at the root of this, it is often the hateful contempt going with this. The obsession to be right! This unhealed division has been long in coming, well before Trump ... not to say that he hasn’t caused it to be much worse. The Court, which is already suspect by many for being partial in decisions due to political preference and allegiance among justices, may suffer more. And those who celebrate all of this unrelenting political turmoil? Our adversaries around the world, of course ... for example, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea.
Interesting, article, thank you. Okay, the Founders were only specific in Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution about the Chief Justice presiding over the trial. Fine. Roberts knows full well, that Article 1, Section 4 clearly states what are impeachable offenses, one is bribery. There’s plenty of credible evidence to charge with and convict Trump of bribery. First article of impeachment.
The second is obstruction of Congress, has been proven and there’s plenty of evidence. Now, we will see if we really have a nonpartisan SCOTUS!
5
“'Roberts represents in many ways the institutionalist,' Mr. Epstein said. 'He believes in the institutions of the Senate and the judiciary and the separation of powers."
Does he? He also actively chose to visit and augment Citizens United, and presided over the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, both decisions axe blows to the central institution of this country: democracy.
3
"Signs of partisanship could damage the Court"? I'm afraid that ship sailed the day McConnell announced he wouldn't even consider Merrick Garland.
8
@Chicago Guy
You are confusing partisanship ON the Court with partisanship ABOUT the Court.
1
@GMooG
No, I'm not. Neil Gorsuch was perfectly happy to take Merrick Garlands seat on the beach without so much as a whisper. And Kavanaugh should have removed his name from consideration after the revelations about his extra-curricular activities were made public.
You can't expect the legitimacy of the Court to remain, when it's Republican members do NOTHING to prevent it's corruption.
1
A prediction: there will be a moment in these proceedings when Moscow Mitch goes one step too far in degrading the judicial process. Democratic "managers" will appeal to Justice Roberts with a cogent legal argument. It's then that things will get interesting.
3
No they won’t. Per the Constitution, the Chief Justice will defer to the collective will of the Senate. The Majority Leader will call for a vote of Senators in attendance.
1
@The Dog
Unless the managers include some people that have yet to appear in any of the House hearings on this, I don't know of any Dem member of the House that is even capable of making a "cogent legal argument."
1
We will shortly find out whether Chief Justice Roberts (A) has any integrity and (B) cares about how he will be viewed by History and in law books of the future.
I am trying to be optimistic, but these days a conservative with integrity is as rare as hens' teeth.
8
Why the Times keeps writing about Roberts’s concern that the Supreme Court should appear impartial is beyond me. If votes were 8-1 or 7-2, people might trust in the court’s supposed impartiality. But when all the votes on hot issues are 5-4, in completely predictable ways, it’s clear that the justices basically rationalize to make the law fit their ideologies. I have no respect whatsoever for the Roberts court and I expect I’m not alone.
13
@Cedric
"But when all the votes on hot issues are 5-4..."
But they aren't. Most votes are NOT along party lines, and 9-0 votes are far more common than 5-4 votes.
The greatest threat to SCOTUS, to Roberts himself, and to the future of our democracy is for Roberts to be forced to passively sit there and allow truth -- whatever it is -- to be systematically avoided. For example, his first act should be an assertive one to recognize that McConnell personally has recused himself by his public statement that he is not "impartial" and by his collusion with the defendant. I think "preside" needs to be interpreted broadly -- as "being in control." Otherwise, why did the founders specify that the Chief Justice would preside? That clearly indicates that they felt it was not a prosaic job any run-of-the-mill judge could perform. Is his only possible initiative to keep things civil and orderly, and prevent the Senators from fisticuffs?
2
Wake up. As far as Trump's base is concerned, if he reacts saying "it's so unfair", it won't matter what the truth is.
2
If Roberts does not demand a fair trial with witnesses and testimony then he is actively supporting trump’s exoneration and reelection. No way around it.
2
Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts will be garbed in black. That's appropriate, since he will be presiding over the funeral of Truth. When Trump took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, it could not have been with any conviction but simply part of a victory dance. Does he understand the Constitution? No, he believes it allows him to do anything. Does he understand truth? No, he lies continuously and compulsively.
So now we'll have this profound ceremony in the Senate where Republican leaders, who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution and have not done so, will take a separate oath to be impartial in the impeachment proceedings, even though many have stated publicly that they will not be impartial.
So, Justice Roberts, what does an oath mean? What will truth even mean after this?
5
@JOSEPH in Texas, who says the left has wanted impeachment from the beginning.
You don’t understand Democrats. Unlike Republicans who obey their leader and fall into line when instructed, Democrats exist along a continuum. The ones who were calling for impeachment from the start represented just a fraction of Dems. The rest of us have never liked him, granted, but no moves were made toward actual impeachment until DJT doled out an obvious rope that could not be ignored. It was only a matter of time. Patience is a virtue, and Dems waited until they had no other choice.
Impeachment is not about the success or failures of any policies; otherwise, W would have been a good candidate. The two articles are Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
If you’re ok with trump inviting Russia and China to interfere in our elections, I’m sure you won’t mind a Dem inviting North Korea or one of the Middle East countries to help them win an election. And certainly you won’t care if a future Dem president forbids anyone with direct knowledge of their actions from testifying when a future Republican congress tries to hold them accountable. Maybe you’re one of the Republicans who would like to dispense with messy checks and balances, and instead have a totalitarian government??
3
I'm confused. Have there been signs that the Court isn't partisan? I think the Ship of Justice sailed when the second GOP sex offender was confirmed.
7
“signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court“. How? SCOTUS is already clearly an extension of the GOP. What damage should Roberts worry about, that he won’t wear his MAGA hat at the proper angle? Roberts has nothing left to defend, the reputation of the court has been thoroughly trashed by the jubilant Mitch McConnell.
3
I hope Roberts stands in McConnell's way of attempting to make it a sham proceeding. When the Chief Justice administers the oath that will be a joke, since so many senators have publicly stated they've already made up their minds, plus McConnell announced he's working hand-in-hand with White House lawyers. So much for impartiality.
4
One crucial and imperative takeaway from this discussion is that the writers of the Constitution of the United State of America did a phenomenal, stupendous job in their attempt to foresee and help to solve all attacks from the political partisans who were certain to come. Please emphasize the word attempt, because they would not and could not foresee or solve every eventuality. Enter our current day right wing lunatics who endorse the fundamentalist view that the constitution should not be interpreted with modern crisis, current situations or new understanding. Just another of the million reasons that the corruption of the right wing lunatics, i.e. he Republican party, needs to come to an end.
1
Based on his record as Chief Justice my expectations for Roberts to conduct a fair and orderly trial are nonexistent. He's a GOP hack from the get go. His swearing in of Obama was a farce and had to be repeated - that farce was no accident and neither was his ruling on Citizens United and many other items.
3
Too bad his legacy will be remembered for one thing only- he will be the top judge in America and preside over a trial where the jury has already decided the verdict without hearing any evidence-what an embarrassing footnote to someone who has supposedly dedicated his life’s work to upholding the American justice system.
4
Trump has already called the Chief Justice “an absolute disaster.” We can look forward to more insults and slander directed at Mr. Roberts if he does anything Trump perceives as bad. He will no doubt continue in his poisonous campaign to undermine the integrity of the Chief Justice and the legitimacy and the quality of the Supreme Court itself.
5
The suggestion that Justice Roberts will approach these proceedings with trepidation about the implications for the institution over which he presides may be accurate, but it is also ludicrous. His office is the most insulated and untouchable the founders could contrive - executive appointment, senate confirmation, lifetime tenure. If he cannot act impartially given all that, he is truly a weak man.
4
This is your decision I reckon, but you Americans have only few months to do the right thing on ballot. Why bother a nuisance, when there is a real chance for democratic, not juridic win?
I'm European so what do I know. Even though your decisions affect the rest of us. Usually not so kindly.
1
I only hope Senate Republicans speed up this hoax of a case and RBG expires soon so that Trump can get busy replacing her with another Conservative Justice. We need a Conservative SCOTUS. Liberals are far too extremist, radical and totalitarian. They should have no voice on the SCOTUS.
So every GOP senator will be lying when they take that oath. Somehow fitting as they protect the man incapable of telling the truth.
5
Partisanship in the SCOTUS Ranks? I am Shocked! ..There is Gambling going on in here? A quote from the Movie Casablanca. As I remember RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) came out against the Donald (when he was just a Candidate for the Republican nomination). What was that about?
The author of this article is either naive or just collecting a paycheck. Roberts will do absolutely nothing but safeguard and rubber stamp the Republican led so-called impeachment trial. I seriously keep wondering why I subscribe to the NYT. Its writers and editorial board don't think critically and they don't seek out critical sources. I need to unsubscribe.
3
Roberts has to be careful lest the Supreme Court be viewed as "partisan?" LOL!! That horse done left the barn!
3
The take away; The SCJ is just there to watch justice circle the drain.
1
How silly for such false hope. It's already damaged, contaminated, under suspicion just like other hallowed institutions, elected and appointed. I plan to watch this mess especially to see how Roberts deals with it.
1
" . . . but signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court.'
LOL. That horse left the barn a long time ago. Just ask the notorious RBG.
2
The Chief Justice does not make rulings from the bench. The Senate as a whole makes all determinations on procedure and evidence. Chief Justice Roberts is a stickler for preservation of a branch’s powers. He would never substitute his judgement for the collective will of the Senate on any item, no matter how mundane on any issue that is not obviously held unanimously. If issues get contested, expect a lot of votes. That is why Sanders, Warren et al have to be in attendance.
2
There is not one Senator who can take that oath with complete honesty. Everyone of them is biased either for or against the defendant. If this was a normal trial the attorneys for both sides would not agree to any of the Senators as impartial jurors.
But this is not a normal trial. It is a political trial and the points in question while judicial in nature come freighted with political outcomes for both sides.
The only thing I would hope the Senators would commit to doing is to listen to the case and render the decision that they believe is correct. There will be no impartiality.
3
I believe the Chief Justice has wide latitude to interpret how he will "preside" over the trial. I do not believe conflict of interest in possible future criminal trials is a significant issue. I reach this conclusion because there is no controlling precedent, two previous trials more than a hundred years apart are hardly controlling precedents. There are eight other justices to deal with possible future proceedings involving Trump. The Senate can overrule him, but how many Senators will want to do that with regularity?
2
Interesting separation-of-powers issue/question: Since Chief Justice Roberts presides over the Senate trial, it seems he would rule on decisions of law, specifically Constitutional law.
So, for example, if a Trump cabinet member was subpoenaed to appear at the trial, and refused to appear by invoking some questionable claim of Executive privilege, wouldn't Roberts be able to rule on it right then and there?
13
Good point. My guess is that if it’s procedural, he’d have to...but that’s a guess.
1
The Constitution explicitly states the Senate itself has complete jurisdiction on any and all matters. It is not a regular trial. The Senate by votes of members will make all rulings itself. The Chief Justice is just a glorified bailiff in a fancy robe in this setting.
1
Not much peril, really. It seems pretty much guaranteed that the Senate "trial" will lead to a forgone conclusion, and Roberts apparently won't have much input into how it's conducted. Nothing much will change, including his reputation.
It would be fun if, when he administers the oath to McConnell, and some of the others who have already announced how they will vote, he raises his eyebrows and says " Are you SURE?".
4
One sage wrote that the Supreme Court of the United States follows the election returns.
Another noted that the Supreme Court of United States is wise because it is final. It is not final because it is wise.
The Chief Justice can choose to be a glorified clerk. Or the Chief Justice can act like a traditional trial judge. While the silence of Constitution on the Chief Justice's role is open to conservative or legal interpretation.
The stench of partisan politics will be the only fragrance present in these proceedings.
5
Can someone answer these questions? As an attorney how many trials has Chief Justice Roberts had? As a judge how many trial has Chief Justice Roberts presided over? My suspicion is that the answer to both questions is: very few.
My guess would be more than most of not all Senators.
The Constitution puts the Chief Justice in charge of an impeachment trial. That duty is barely defined by the Constitution. I tried a lot of cases and a judge always ran the show. It would seem to me that the Chief Justice can assume whatever authority he deems necessary in an impeachment trial.
3
@Clark Landrum hahahahahahahah.
No it doesn’t. He is the presiding officer, having the same role that a senator temporarily fills in each session. His presence is only there so all Senators can participate in the proceedings. The Senate as a whole decides on its own rules in every proceeding and this impeachment proceeding will not be different.
@Michael Blazin
Justice Roberts is one of the country's leading attorneys, an intelligent jurist of long experience. I don't see him being comfortable with arcane senate procedures like trials without witnesses. We will see if he leaves his own imprint on the proceedings.
We may not all agree with his conservative social and political leaning. However, going by published commentary, it would seem that Mr. Roberts is both a man of high professional integrity as well as an institutionalist. So it is highly unlikely that he will act as Mitch McConnell's toady. Let us remember that his legacy will set at a precedent on this whole matter for decades to follow.
2
Considering that Roberts and his colleagues have been slow-walking and dragging out other important cases involving this president, with no sense of urgency whatsoever for the long-term implications to our hobbled republic, I have little faith that he is going to make any demonstrable difference in the outcome.
When you have a Senate majority leader who has already pledged to "work in total coordination" with the president's defense team and who has already said that there will be no impeachment, then what's the point?
At this late juncture, the federal courts and SCOTUS has been weaponized beyond recognition in the service of this president and Mitch McConnell. Therefore, the subhead of this article nailed it: Roberts's only purpose is ceremonial.
He is not coming to save the Republic.
4
Justice Roberts is the Susan Collins of the judiciary. He muses out loud about fairness, judicial integrity and about what is right. Then he toes the conservative company line. As others have mentioned he has presided over some disastrous and tortured decisions. Let's not forget the most recent big case in the demise of democracy. He refused to rule on partisan gerrymandering. Add mine to a vote of no confidence in Roberts. He won't do anything to threaten the conservative ecosystem.
12
Why must Justice Robert's role be 'mostly ceremonial? the founders put him in charge of the impeachment trial for a specific reason, to control the partisan atmosphere and come to a just conclusion and this role is more than ever needed.
this is a trial after all and the judge has a powerful role in allowing jurors, testimony and questions. Why should this be any different.
A juror such as Mitch McConnell who has declared him self prejudiced before the trial begins should not be allowed to control the proceedings and the way the constitution sets up the trial bares that out. Will Justice/Judge assert himself and take control to assure a fair trial or will he bow to the partisan pressures and watch injustice flourish.
2
Should he not entertain dismissal with cause as presented by the house manager? Leader McConnell would be the first to go.
Why would the Chief Justice have to put his thumb on the scale?
The GOP Senate is not going to remove Trump from office. The party who will suffer because of that problem is the GOP Class of 2020. The Chief Justice would only be blamed if he were to do something completely atypical of this Chief Justice.
trump owns the courts - and not just the "supreme" court. There will not be a fair trial. This is not news. trump has made it quite clear that he has no serious interest in fairness, honesty or the US Constitution. And, oh, yes, he owns the Senate, too.
This is the litmus test, so to speak. We shall know exactly where Chief Justice Roberts stands, and if he regards this as the historically poignant moment that it is.
3
Too late, it is pretty clear the supreme court is fully partisan now. That was the intent of McConnell all along. The perception of an independent supreme court interpreting the law objectively and with the best interest of the country in mind is over. Every day the supreme court becomes perceived more and more as an untrustworthy institution. It's all part of the Republican program to turn the US into a 3rd world banana republic. Putin is ecstatic every single day. China is pretty upbeat as well.
2
"...but signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court."
Republican president and Republican supreme court justice.
Does anyone think for a moment that the writer would have said that the trial were for Democratic president with a Democratic supreme court justice?
1
The trial cannot be impartial. The Republican party, of which Justice Roberts belongs, no longer believes in what is right. They only want to control the country, even if it means that complete destruction of our nation and everything we hold dear.
2
"Signs of partisanship could damage the court."--Is that a joke? Good one. Nearly 20 years ago the Supreme Court decided a presidential election, 5-4. They've been on a roll since propping up the rights of corporations over people; permitting foreign money into our political process (see Russia, Trump and the NRA); and gutting the Voting Rights Act. All of these things enabled the rise of what must be the most unfit person to the White House. The Majority Leader ("majority"...another joke) doesn't pretend the course exist for anything other than raw partisanship. I would say the idea that the SCOTUS could represent impartiality, respect for the Constitution and justice for all is, at this point, a long forgotten dream.
4
As a nurse, an RN Case Manager, Justice John Roberts will always mean a lot to me because of the way he handled the Affordable Care Act.
Both he and John McCain helped save many patients in this country on behalf of the ACA. I would have loved to have both of them walk down the hospital hallway trenches into patient rooms with me and introduce them. Many are grateful, I can assure.
We will be watching Roberts with respect. God speed.
2
Chief Justice Roberts' duty might prove to be more perilous for President Trump than for Chief Justice Roberts. Just which one experiences the most peril will depend on whether Roberts practices judicial abdication or judicial prudence and how well proxy president McConnell can manipulate Roberts and the trial. The ersatz jurors, under the diluted and inferior leadership of proxy president McConnell, are most likely to acquit the impeached president, no matter how Roberts exercises his duties. Trump has created quite a mess, McConnell has chosen to serve only himself and the president without regard to the well-being of the citizenry or the constitution, and Roberts actions may be only those of a director of shadow puppetry.
Each senator should give the oath individually one at a time, on a microphone, in front of the whole chamber, with one hand on the Bible, and cameras rolling on each one. Americans want to see their representatives swearing to be impartial and to uphold the constitution of the United States, especially McConnell and Graham.
2
I certainly don’t envy the Chief Justice, for no matter how hard he tries to be impartial (defined by Trump and his supporters solely as doing whatever it is Trump thinks/believes/feels) he will be excoriated. I can already imagine the vile tweets from the White House.
Readers also need to remember that, as the article makes quite clear (though a lot of comments don’t seem to grasp) this is not a trial or a matter governed by normal rules or criminal or civil procedure. The Senate, and the Senate alone, determines the rules and can override any decision by the Chief Justice. That includes demanding recusal of McConnell and the others who appear to simply be towing the White House line.
1
The ship of an honorable legacy has sailed a long time ago.
John G. Roberts Jr. will always be known as the Chief Justice who presided over and decided Citizens United v. FEC, the most disastrous ruling of this century.
7
Donald Trump has made it crystal clear that he doesn't respect any democratic norms, and when he gets enough power he will complete his transition to one-man rule. Congress and the SC will be mere well-paid figureheads.
Roberts is there to make sure the trial is conducted by the rules, but the jury is already fixed, and witnesses won't really matter. IMHO, Roberts will do enough to seem impartial without making Trump angry enough to remove him from the bench in the new regime.
1
Is there anyone in the world who thinks the supreme court is not a partisan institution?
3
The informed among us surely understand the dilemma facing Chief Justice Roberts. As a Republican appointee to the court, he may seem a traitor to his party, if he opens up and demands relevant witnesses and evidence. On the other hand, he should rightly fear being seen as a Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (The Dred Scott decision of 1857) or as Melville Fuller, Chief Justice in the nearly as infamous Plessy v. Ferguson segregation case of 1896.
Roberts needs to act strongly and courageously in preventing several terrible outcomes, including the very real perception he has presided over a "sham trial"; he has given away his belief in an "independent judiciary"; and he has knuckled under to avoid verbal retribution by Trump.
If he doesn't stand up and preside (exercise his authority) in this situation the very power to check an out-of-control (if not criminal) chief executive may be lost forever.
Insist, Mr. Chief Justice, on the calling of witnesses and the presentation of relevant evidence. Time to take a hit or two in order to save the Great Republic. We want to keep it, in the words of Ben Franklin!
5
Both President Nixon and President Clinton vigorously attempted not to testify. President Clinton had to testify and was found guilty of lying. President Nixon testified after he resigned and was pardoned by President Ford, giving testimony in California that is still sealed. But ultimately, he did testify. This precedent is clear and must be upheld. No one is above the law. Neither is President Trump. Bottom line, he must testify.
5
The Supreme Court is already damaged by partisanship. Justice Garland might have done something do overcome that, but instead we have Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, that latter of whom, I have heard, really likes beer.
3
Judiciary in this country is absolute joke. Two of the justices were nominated by Trump himself. They should've recused themselves from the hearing while they still can.
I understand (from various interviews with legal experts on CNN and other media) Chief Justice Roberts has the right to decide on witnesses. If my assumption is correct, then he is duty bound to ensure all witnesses previously prevented from testifying shall be forced to testify. If he doesn't, then the SCOTUS loses all credibility.
3
This is a crisis point, Judge Roberts. History will remember.
3
I don't trust Roberts. He seems to be more of Trump's attorney than a Supreme Court attorney. I hope I am wrong. This is too important to be partial to the president. History will record this. I believe Roberts knows that. But does he care? He has a lifetime judgeship. They should be able to be impeached and removed. But then, Trump should be removed too.
Chief Justice Roberts is keenly aware that impeachment proceedings in the Senate are a constitutional stress test. He will do his best to counterbalance Trump’s instinct to turn the proceedings into a circus.
I don’t see any reason for it to be perilous if he simply follows the law.
1
It would seem that the Chief Justice has two alternatives. One, he can take the oath and then administer that same oath to the members Senate. Then he can sit down and do nothing. The second choice is that he can act as a Judge. Judges preside over courts and in doing so, run that court under the procedures of law, evidence and procedure that are present in every trial. Justice Roberts can inform the Senate, “This is my court and I’m running it. If you don’t like it, I’ll leave.” After all, when there is little or nothing written, you can either do nothing or fill in the blanks.
1
Any signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke?
2
I was really hoping that the Chief Justice would not seat KavaNo, a hope born of desperation I guess. He treated that responsibility as mere decorum, and I suspect he will do the same here.
1
The Supreme Court is already badly damaged in the eyes of progressives.Two of its members were accused of sexual misconduct. In the case of Justice Kavanaugh, the president's council, McGahn, ordered the FBI to undertake a sham investigation. Justice Gorsuch wants to get rid of the administrative state, including regulatory agencies.
If the Court refuses to permit the House to examine Trump's tax returns, it will be seen by liberals as a branch of the Trump administration.
1
The Supreme Court is outright partisan and pretend that is not is absurd at this point in time.
5
The House better come up with a crime by tomorrow. Else the impeachment is likely to be dismissed in the Senate after the opening statements.
You have got to be kidding! SCOTUS is way past being non-partisan. Corporations are people; money is speech; racial discrimination in voting access is a thing of the past. These are all signs of a partisan agenda. If you are poor, a person of color, or "the little guy" your rights are subservient to the rights of whites, the rich, and the corporations. Roberts may or may not conduct himself in a non-partisan manner in the impeachment trial, but the question of whether the court is partisan is already settled.
2
This is definitely a NO_WIN situation for Chief Roberts. Any ruling or even comment that goes against Republican interests will immediately be characterized as partisan, regardless of whether it is or not.
Shockingly, I'm not expecting justice to be done during this proceeding. Trump lies with impunity.
This is the Federalist society's big moment . And they will make the most of it .
1
I'm just glad it's not Kavanaugh. By the way, he likes beer.
1
What irony and spectacle to display to the world. A sham trial, in a sham court, with sham jurors all headed by the top justice of the land, all to prove that trump is effectively above American and even international law. Tyrants and autocrats will rejoice as they point to America as the beacon of injustice and entitlement and pretext for their own actions.
1
"...signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court." The SCOTUS has been damaged goods since Bush v. Gore. What's another slice from an already cut loaf?
2
Roberts has already damage the supreme court
1
Partisan and Partial are both pretty close in spelling. In hyper partisan America I’m not holding my breath waiting to see any impartiality regardless who the Chief Justice is. Watching Adam Schiff on TV all these months certainly hasn’t much helped either.
I wish people would stop calling it a trial because Monarch Moscow Mitch McConnell will set it up as a Kangaroo Court Acquittal. Roberts won't "preside" in the sense of a typical judge at a real trial. If he doesn't insist that witnesses such a Bolton be called, then his reputation will be stained more than it already is.
1
I am tired of waiting for powerful people to do their jobs or rise to the occasion in the face of Trump. John Roberts looks like Susan Collins looks like Mueller to me. I see no patriot who will save us anywhere. If we can overcome gerrymandering, giant piles of dark money and vote him out, we may have a shot. Otherwise we will be living in a country where McConnell, Brett Kavanaugh, DeVos and Barr decide how we live.
4
This appears to be an immature game regarding impeaching a president. What power! It appears that everyone around Washington wants to be president. President Trump was sworn in and should not be sworn out.
Well then I guess he needs to simply remain unbiased, like he's supposed to.
Signs of partisanship? Give me a break! How about when SCOTUS stole the 2000 election from Gore, a collaboration between Jeb Bush, Catherine Harris and the GOP majority on the court?
With Moscow Mitch in charge, there won't be a fair trial, because if there was, Trump would be removed from office and imprisoned.
The GOP wing of our government has become so corrupt, it's disgusting.
4
You have to be kidding. The court is long damaged and anyone who isn't totally partisan knows it - going back to Bush v Gore.
2
For the left, if he goes against their expectations, he’s partisan. If he agrees with them he’s fair.
That’s just called hypocrisy.
Why should we have any confidence that Roberts isn’t just as crooked and compromised as the rest of the Republicans and other members
of Trump’s cult. This will be a tragic farce. Just like the condition this country has been in since he became president.
2
Since SCOTUS reversed a century long president and allowed unlimited campaign donations SCOTUS has become a partisan monied GOP/plutocracy. Trump’s bribing a foreign official, war criminal status for assassinating a foreign General, refusing Congressional subpoenas, using his presidency to enrich himself, seeking help from Russia for his campaign “Really doesn’t matter.”
1
Barring some spectacular nonsense emanating from one side or the other all he has to do is sit there. The outcome is assured so as long as he doesn’t jump up and do a tarantella on the desk
top he’ll be fine.
Now if there was some uncertainty it would be a far motor difficult situation.
uh, what's so "supreme" about this court? more lies, right?
2
And they accuse of in California of being in la la land. I think the NYTimes has us beat anyday. What a joke - signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice will bang his gavel and begin by announcing, "We shall take a few moments to allow those who have already made up their minds in this matter, to excuse themselves and leave these chambers." After an interminable akward silence they will all break out laughing and proceed to acquit Trump without looking at any evidence.
3
I cannot conceive under what circumstance that Justice Roberts will risk his reputation to show bias for this blatant law breaker, Trump.
The fact that Trump is still blocking the specific "first hand witnesses" that he complained were "missing" to warrant a valid impeachment charge... is in itself
completely insane.
Yet Republican lemmings just keep spewing "no first hand witnesses" over and over.
Are they just idiots?
Hello, Republirubes... Wake up. Obstruction of Congress is actually the second of the two impeachment charges.
How can any Republican congressional representative allow this out of control president to defy and undermine their very own member body...Congress.
How can they allow Trump to strip them of two of their very own critical constitutional powers: "oversight" and "congressional subpoenas".
Trump has been so emboldened with his cowardly GOPers that he's even tried to strip them of their third one and most important power this week, Congress's "power to declare war".
Seems no one in Congress was advised of the Russian hacking attempt either.
How much more are you going to take, GOPers, as Trump eviscerates your your constitutional powers daily and all you do is lick his boots.
I repeat, are they just idiots?
3
Unless and until Chief Justice Roberts demands that witnesses be called and allowed to testify, this whole thing will be nothing but a sign of America’s continuing downfall. The Supreme Court is already compromised with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Make no mistake: Robert’s role in the impeachment trail is much more than ceremonial and he should know this.
913
@Lenore M: Serious question. What part of the constitutional mandate: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments” do you not understand?
It is not the role of the Chief Justice to establish rules at an impeachment trial. Were he to do so, he would be controverting the Constitution.
I don’t want that in a Chief Justice. Nobody should.
12
@Lenore M The chief justice has no business getting into political acts. Nothing good can come of it.
4
@Jonathan They sure do (snark not necessary). and I do think she knows this. We thinking people know this is going to be a farce thanks to Senate 'leadership', and the outcome is predetermined. But wishful thinking hopes otherwise.
20
12.16.19 - As an attorney and student of history, I wanted to inquire if anybody was thinking of filing a formal Motion with Chief Justice John Roberts to disqualify any Senator, as active juror, who has already expressed how they will vote before hearing any formally admitted evidence? Senator McConnell, as a juror, has already expressed an opinion publicly there is no possibility of impeachment conviction, and is actively coordinating with the Defendant, in contradiction of his oath of office as neutral juror. While the Senate Rules provide for overriding the Chief Justice by majority vote, must such vote be done by qualified jurors? Presidement power must trump Senate Rules.
I don’t believe this has been done in the prior two impeachment trials, and thus, would present a case of first impression for the judiciary. While the move may inadvertently disqualify other Democratic senators who have already expressed their opinion on conviction (not impeachment inquiry), it may also have the effect of disqualifying enough Republican Senators to ultimately obtain a 2/3 majority of remaining senators, and therefore removal from office. Has anybody counted the numbers? The Motion would have extra weight with the judiciary if it also named any explicitly vocal Democratic senators, on the subject of conviction only.
36
This is one more significant result of our educational system having abandoned teaching Civics as an essential part of the curriculum. Americans no longer understand the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court, especially the underpinnings that legitimate the power of a small group with lifetime appointments to overrule the decisions of elected members of Congress and an elected President. Instead, everyone across the political spectrum simply wants the Court to accomplish for them either what they have not been able to accomplish politically or to do what cannot be supported by the Constitution but they nonetheless deem desirable.
8
@Steve Fankuchen You are totally correct. Authoritarians want to believe that the Constitution has a fixed and immutable meaning. It doesn't. It laid down a fixed set of values by which we are supposed to apply the Constitution to real events in our our own lifetime.
The Founders may have permitted slavery to continue, but they most definitely enshrined a set of precepts based on the idea the insight that "Today's politics do not permit that which tomorrow's will demand."
10
I would like to see Justice Roberts put some sort of stamp on the impeachment process in order to further define it. Since the constitution gives very little advisement on impeachment the chief justice can establish precedent for the proceedings. The two previous impeachment chief justices have each injected a small bit of guidance into the process, hopefully Roberts does too.
3
Oh good grief, it's damaged already. Roberts can do whatever he wants, just like all the other guys.
19
I have confidence that our Chief Justice will rule on the side of LAW. He has proven himself to be a great judge for the American people.
But never underestimate the drugged zombie Republicans in the Senate to do the WRONG thing. They will overturn Robert's decision in a heartbeat if that is what the supreme leader trump orders them to do.
We already have McConnell and Graham slamming it down on the table.
Will Civil War ensue if the dictator perserveres?
3
@Eve Elzenga I envision secession instead of a civil war. Trump can have the South and the Plains states. Both coasts and a swath along the Great Lakes form a more perfect union. It's all Lincoln's fault - should've let the South secede.
Roberts' role is as significant as he wants to make it. And if he does nothing to make sure that a trial fits the gravity of the charges, he will be complicit in undermining the US Constitution - no less than Moscow Mitch. He will not insist on real witnesses, he will not demand that the senate considers real evidence, he will not push against Republican distractions. How do I know? What better indication do we have then his absolute silence when Mitch single-handedly prevented Obama's nominee from a hearing for the court? Sorry, Judge Roberts. You are a coward or a knave. (It does not matter which.) You will be remembered as presiding over the deterioration of justice in democratic America. So let me ask this: for how long do you think you and your like will be able to protect yourself from the injustice, inequity, global chaos and environmental degradation you are happy enough to unleash on the rest of us?
21
@Worried
My guess is that Roberts, like other conservative Republicans, cannot imagine a time when he and his cronies will be out of power. That is the endeavor they are all engaged in right now, helping Trump secure that power.
Because this is a political impeachment, and not a criminal impeachment, the Chief Justice has the authority to dismiss the whole thing. Realizing he will never please the radical left democrat party...and wanting to reach the middle, independents and republicans...he can throw the whole thing out the window.
1
@Tom
Totally wrong. He has no such power. Only the Senate can dismiss.
The American people (who still maintain a grip on reality) can only hope over the coming weeks John Roberts fully lives up to the epithet 'absolute disaster' so casually and thrown in his teeth by Donald J Trump.
11
I suspect the Supreme Court has already been tainted and that we as a people cannot expect complete impartiality from it. By all means, please prove me wrong.
16
Putting the impeachment trial aside, there is a lot on Roberts's plate in the near future, and the stakes for him personally are these - CJ Roberts, the Republic will live or die on your watch. ON YOUR WATCH. Think about that.
12
The views of these NY Times opinion writers don’t bode well for an impartial trial. Oh well, else is new.
“... the chief justice is the extreme, right-wing leader of an extreme, right-wing majority, which is rapidly turning the court into little more than a partisan extension of the Republican Party.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html
7
Trump is a despicable human being who hasn’t shown us his taxes. We need to find out if there’s more lurking. Just listen to what he has to say and it qualifies him for impeachment.
7
We already know that Trump, McConnell, and many GOP Senators and Reps are scoundrels.....now we'll find out how much integrity Roberts has.
10
He doesn't have any integrity. Roberts is politically aligned with right-wing forces, otherwise he wouldn't be in the SC.
1
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. over sees a Supreme Court stained by Senator Mitch McConnell's failure to provide Judge Merrick Garland even a fair hearing in the Senate, a sexual predator frat boy Kavanaugh, and a stained Judge Thomas.
The Supreme Court has never in American History been held in such contempt and distrust by the American People.
Should Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. allow Moscow Mitch to desecrate the Senate yet another time, with a sham trial of a sitting president with a second election violated by Russian GRU Military Intelligence Officers hacking a Ukrainian oil company for dirt on Mr. Trump's political rival, the reputation of the Supreme court will be in the Oval Office toilet.
38
would only be perilous for someone that is bias or otherwise partisan. anyone actually doing their job as CJOSC inna proper way would not be a problem. the fact an article is even written about this is troublesome.
2
Balls and strikes and a mask with bars to impede his vision.
1
I think Roberts knows Trump is a complete lunatic. He will do the right thing.
3
@karen
Like with his work on behalf of Bush in 2000?
1
Republican appointees are partisan but Democrats appointees are not. NYT once again you’ve shown your true colors. Anti Republican and of course at least 4 Anti Trump articulations a day.
So now the NYT and liberals are trying to intimidate the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? I thought this only happened in 3rd world countries.
1
Here is a perfect example of malevolent right wing madness. An article on the sedate history of our chief justices’ presiding over impeachment trials is “intimidating the Chief Justice?” Who’s the snowflake now?
2
@JGaltTX
Only a Trump supporter would interpret expectations of impartiality as a form of "intimidation". That had to come straight from Fox News, or Donald himself...
4
It's dead simple: the authority and integrity of the Supreme Court hangs on how this trial proceeds--and the legitimacy of this entire government depends on the Supreme Court retaining its authority and integrity. If Roberts screws this up--or, worse, Trump, McConnell, and the GOP succeed in pushing through anything less than an objective and real trial--then the legitimacy of the entire government falls.
That simple. That complete. Get it right--or lose it all and figure out how to start over again. The Supremes just barely managed to slip through Dubya's appointment by decree in 2000, and they've never really recovered. If they can't do better this time around, there is nothing left to maintain the system of checks and balances and a three-branch government. All that's left is a corrupt GOP in charge of everything...and a nation trying to work out what to do about it.
8
@Peg It's been over since 1/20/2017. 241 years was a good run, though. Someone once said when fascism takes over America it will be wrapped in a flag and holding a bible.
2
Chief Justice Roberts main function seems to take an oath and to administer an oath to the Senators-one could hope that he would remind everyone of the solemnity of the occasion and the fidelity to the constitution which an oath commands.Mitch McConnell, who has said that he will work closely with Trump’s lawyers has already demonstrated that he is lying if he swears to be impartial.Because Roberts has been trusted to serve for his lifetime in his position he owes the country the very best judgment and the most even handed deliberation.If he does not live up to this challenge, he will have many years to regret that he did not uphold the dignity of the Justice system.
13
@JANET MICHAEL Review Citizens United. Justice Roberts is shameless.
It will never be forgotten, the Mitch McConnell led travisty of denying Merrick Garland even a hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court. Not in memory has there been a more Machiavellian, blatantly political, undermining of the institutions which support our democracy.
63
The Supreme Court justice is beyond caring if this damages the court. Many reputations have been damaged yet things keep going in the direction of ill-do-anything-for-power.
7
"Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice"
I don't see why. He has a lifetime appointment to the court, and as long as he executes his duties impartially, fairly and according to law, he shouldn't have any problem - except with people who don't respect impartiality, fairness or the law. Can't imagine who that might be.
5
This Senate impeachment trial really is a test of whether we are a nation of laws or of men.
Isn't this one reason Supreme Court Justices get lifetime appointments--so they won't be burdened by party loyalty and partisan politics, and are free to look out for the well being of the Constitution and the law in this country?
Of course there is extraordinary pressure on Chief Justice Roberts, but the pressure is not to please one political party or the other, but to conduct a fair trial, as his education, knowledge, and experience prepared him to do.
This is Roberts moment in history to demonstrate his professionalism and a much-needed profile in courage to restore honor and justice to the Constitution and our divided partisan nation.
In keeping with the intended separation of powers in the Constitution, Roberts job is not to answer to the President and the Executive, or to our highly partisan, dysfunctional Senate. He answers to the people and to the future of law, respect, dignity, and human decency in the United States of America.
Why should that be so tough--unless partisan politicians and the media want to make it so. What is their responsibility in this impeachment trial?
2
Much of the talk and writings about the Chief Justice's role in impeachment are nonsense as they claim his role is ceremonial. But the constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."
Preside is defined as: 1. To hold the position of authority. 2. To possess or exercise authority or control. This is rightfully Chief Justice Roberts' job in the impeachment trial; he is the judge in the trial and should not accept the role of a potted plant as Moscow Mitch McConnell expects him to do.
So, if Chief Justice Roberts indeed "presides" over the impeachment acting as a fair judge being persnickety about proper courtroom procedure, rules of evidence, etc. his job is straightforward and the result will be admirable!
I am also sure he is not afraid of or will be swayed by the hyper-partisanship of the Senate any more than he is troubled by other hotly contested trials in which the opposing sides are fiercely at odds.
2
Does anyone know if Justice Roberts tried any cases while in private practice? A lot of judges who are appointed to the appeals court for political purposes have never been involved in a trial. Being a trial judge is hard work. He may be in over his head.
1
The supreme court's reputation is exceedingly tarnished by its Citizen's United decision which gives money control over our elections and the result has been legal manupulation of what we once called "fair elections". But Roberts could choose to preside over the Senate's proceedings beholden to the American people not American dollars.
5
@V The Seattle City Council's amazing action yesterday in challenging Citizens United should give us all cause for hope.
@Sequel
Yes, of course. You know what they say: As goes the Seattle City Council, so goes the world.
As a Never Trumper (who occasionally finds that Trump has done something correct or successful) and as a left-centrist, I have always found the Chief Justice to be a defender of the Constitution and an enemy of overt partisanship.
There is no way this Chief Justice is going to allow his political attitudes -- which everyone has -- interfere with his duty to the Constitution, or threaten the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He has always behaved as if he is Chief Justice Marshall reincarnated, and he is the only thing guaranteeing legitimacy to the Senate's impeachment process.
1
The US Constitution is a fairly general statement. The description of the Chief Justice's duties ("preside") is adequate for the purpose.
In comparison, Article III begins "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The term "Judicial Power" is not explained in that document either.
The chief justice's role is most definitely not a ceremonial role. The founders intentionally and wisely had the third branch of government presiding over the first branch deciding the fate of the head of the second branch. The wisdom in that ought to be obvious to everyone. Otherwise, the Vice President, who is the "president" of the Senate, could preside.
2
The court that gave us Citizens United is worried about it's image? The Court that has put Obamacare on Life Support is concerned how it looks? The Warren Court was the last Great Court. Roberts is Chief Justice of a Republican Court and we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
10
"This one in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”
The supreme court has had a legitimacy problem for a long time. it completely lost it when Brett Kavanaugh was allowed to join.
7
"Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice"
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had better remember that the American people will be watching and they are demanding a full, fair and complete trial. Roberts has an important role to play and his record will go down in the history books as well as the books on the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice.
2
The fact that Supreme Court Justices spend time conferencing with billionaires tell you they stand with the majority of them politically. The fact that most cases involving businesses win in this conservative court confirm it.
3
When Democrats rightfully move to have Coverup McConnell recused from service in the Senate trial due to his repeated, unambiguous, public admissions of a deep pretrial bias for Trump, things will get very challenging for Roberts. How could he not decide to recuse McConnell from participating in any impeachment trial, given the circumstance that he would have just previously administered an oath to the majority leader requiring him to administer “impartial justice” in the proceeding? If Roberts decides not to recuse, such an outlandish decision will cast a dark shadow of injustice over the entire proceeding that follows.
2
Justice Roberts can chose to uphold his oath and the laws of the land, or chose to twist the basis of the concept that no one is above the law, for partisan advantage, in this upcoming spectacle. The leader of the Senate has already declared that he intends to make a mockery of law and order and justice by calling no witnesses, and not impeaching President Trump, before the process even starts. For the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, I would hope that there is nothing difficult or perilous about the choice he makes here. Will he chose freedom and democracy, or will he chose corruption for political gain?
2
I hope Roberts orders that any Senator (Democrat or Republican) who has demonstrated that he or she will not uphold their oath of impartiality is recused from the trial. While the Senate might choose to overrule Roberts it would set the appropriate tone.
4