A bit of constitutional trivia occurred among the partisan votes yesterday regarding the power of the presiding officer, here the Chief Justice. Roberts said that the precedent of CJ Chase breaking two ties during the Johnson Impeachment was not enough for him -- highlighting he was an unelected official from another branch -- "to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed" in a given case. Sen. Lisa M. (who now and then shows a smidgen of independence, such as on the Affordable Care Act or Kavanaugh) didn't force him to so assert on the question of witnesses (only Collins and Romney voted to have them) but after she so voted, Schumer asked him about it.
[Before this, other than Roberts cautioning both sides to be nice, the one notable bit of presiding officer action was him not reading a question Rand Paul offered. The press flagged an early case that was said to be a result of the question somehow involving the whistle blower. Repeated attempts to out the whistle blower here is outrageous, besides being overall irrelevant to the proceedings. Roberts did not explain his action and Paul didn't ask him to do so. Roberts should have explained his action publicly though Paul not challenging it was wrong as well. It came off as a stunt but that would not be the first time he did so. See also here in comments.]
I think that is correct as far as it goes -- wondering why this wasn't done before it became a moot point -- from my reading of some articles on the matter, the issue of tie breaking there is at best an open question under the Senate rules. So, Roberts is correct not to decide on his own authority to settle the question. On the other hand, if the Senate would decide to give the presiding officer the power to break ties, the presiding officer should break ties. It is not somehow obvious that a presiding officer there would break ties (if so, why explicitly say the vice president has such a power?) though it is a reasonable option. So, fine enough there.
The Chief Justice presides and one angle there is that he provides a symbolic role. The basic reason he is there is that the vice president (or a Senate stand-in) usually does the job but it was be a self-interested affair in this case. You could in theory have the Senate pro tempore do it (though he is in the line of succession) or another senator, which might be useful since it could avoid a possible tie. And, though basically only judges have been impeached other than three presidents, one can argue that for a Cabinet officer (or even in theory a member of the Vice President's own team), the vice president might be considered biased too.
Nonetheless, there is a logic there, including to add prestige and sanctity to the whole affair. How much is unclear, but having the Chief Justice there as compared to even some run of the mill retired federal judge matters. Still, there is a two edged sword as explained by this suggestion (figure we have more important worries but fine enough) to amend to change presiding officer. Impeachment is a political and partisan process and arguably the Chief Justice shouldn't be involved. Either way, you cannot have it both ways -- if the process is tainted, if this is not really a trial (as Schiff and the Democrats as a whole argue without documents and witnesses allowed, for the very first time in an impeachment trial), how can the presiding officer not be tainted somehow?
And, if the Chief Justice is tainted, in some fashion some will find the other thing he presides over tainted too. Even if that step is a bit much, yes, I think the Chief Justice is tarnished some here. You have even law professors arguing he has more agency than he appears to have as presiding officer after all. At the very least, yes, the Constitution is tainted by the Republicans not even allowing documents and witnesses, which should have been authorized upfront. Multiple Republicans, even Rubio to the extent he said it was not the deciding matter, saying Trump did something inappropriate (weak tea alone since he also broke the law and abused power) and wrong does help somewhat. Still, it makes the rest that much more wrong since they are admitting that he did something wrong. Plus, hard to say an acquittal vote "clears" him with such talk out there.
We have multiple Republicans, even Sen. Graham (now on team suck-up), horrified with Trump in 2016 and beyond. But, they was not willing to do anything. Two of them, eventually, were willing to vote for witnesses. When it was clear he was not going to be removed all long. The bare minimum here was -- especially as more and more came out about what will be in John Bolton's book and Trump's own legal team said there were doubts on the facts (facts which documents and witnesses would help clarify) -- to have something of a full trial. Impeachment is about the whole process, just like a lawsuit or legislative hearing.
This is why even now that impeachment is of some value, if in part to show how broken the Republican Party truly is. Warren's question was akin to the little boy saying the king has no clothes, embarrassing but true. As to the whole impeachment thing, as noted in the past, feel it has some issues but overall did good too. For instance, the impeachment counts included an allegation that Trump's actions reflect past actions. But, the impeachment presentation seemed to in at times tedious fashion just focus on the Ukraine matter. This allowed the argument that this was some sort of one-off as compared to what it really is -- a synecdoche of a wider problem. Put aside other possible issues like abuse of pardons etc. found in various lists.
And, this came up at times, including the argument that he cannot be trusted in the future. But, especially the Mueller Report, was rarely referenced. By one count, see that reenactment of the second part by actors, Trump obstructed justice ten times under its lights. Trump's campaign team (including his son, which is a tad on point given the whole Hunter Biden thing) also in multiple cases engaged with and it seems actively assisted the Russians. Finally, down to refusal to in person questioning or follow-up to a lame set up written replies, Trump obstructed the investigation.
I had hoped, in part suggested by some of the remarks when the House had debate before the final vote, that the impeachment would provide more of a chance to show the wider nature of Trump's basic unfitness for his office. For instance, there should have been more attention -- repeatedly found myself the only one bringing it up -- that in March that Roberts will be hearing three cases about Trump blocking third party financial document subpoenas, one involving a hush money investigation in New York, two involving the House itself, which in part flagged the relevancy to impeachment investigations! Also noted was the documents were part of examination threats to our elections (starting next week!) and national/international financial institutions in part from foreign interference. Roberts will preside there too.
The absurdity of Monica Lewinsky snarking on Twitter regarding no witnesses ("hey, wish I didn't have to testify, bad hair day!" or something) is topped by one of his many accusers of sexual abuse now requesting DNA to help prove her rape claim. (She alleges Trump defamed her by denying the accusation.) The still ongoing emoluments litigation, which is not totally unrelated at all from the foreign related corruption alleged here, just adds to the mix. Meanwhile, the State of the Union is scheduled before the final impeachment vote is scheduled as of now. So absurd.
Meanwhile, best wishes to Rep. Nadler's ill wife and his family.
[Before this, other than Roberts cautioning both sides to be nice, the one notable bit of presiding officer action was him not reading a question Rand Paul offered. The press flagged an early case that was said to be a result of the question somehow involving the whistle blower. Repeated attempts to out the whistle blower here is outrageous, besides being overall irrelevant to the proceedings. Roberts did not explain his action and Paul didn't ask him to do so. Roberts should have explained his action publicly though Paul not challenging it was wrong as well. It came off as a stunt but that would not be the first time he did so. See also here in comments.]
I think that is correct as far as it goes -- wondering why this wasn't done before it became a moot point -- from my reading of some articles on the matter, the issue of tie breaking there is at best an open question under the Senate rules. So, Roberts is correct not to decide on his own authority to settle the question. On the other hand, if the Senate would decide to give the presiding officer the power to break ties, the presiding officer should break ties. It is not somehow obvious that a presiding officer there would break ties (if so, why explicitly say the vice president has such a power?) though it is a reasonable option. So, fine enough there.
In the Q&A portion -- which was a mixed bag with some pretty good questions and some trollish ones (the whole process is interesting and I think it would not be a bad idea to set it up in some form as a regular practice to require such back and forth with the executive's representatives like this) -- included this somewhat controversial question from Sen. Warren. In her rejection of witnesses, Sen. Lisa M. alluded to it but her argument was pretty much b.s. so wouldn't really concern troll about it. Rep. Schiff assured the Senate in reply that the only group's legitimacy at risk here was Congress. So, it sort of was a good thing for the House team as a whole. Plus, that was sort of a politic answer."At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"
The Chief Justice presides and one angle there is that he provides a symbolic role. The basic reason he is there is that the vice president (or a Senate stand-in) usually does the job but it was be a self-interested affair in this case. You could in theory have the Senate pro tempore do it (though he is in the line of succession) or another senator, which might be useful since it could avoid a possible tie. And, though basically only judges have been impeached other than three presidents, one can argue that for a Cabinet officer (or even in theory a member of the Vice President's own team), the vice president might be considered biased too.
Nonetheless, there is a logic there, including to add prestige and sanctity to the whole affair. How much is unclear, but having the Chief Justice there as compared to even some run of the mill retired federal judge matters. Still, there is a two edged sword as explained by this suggestion (figure we have more important worries but fine enough) to amend to change presiding officer. Impeachment is a political and partisan process and arguably the Chief Justice shouldn't be involved. Either way, you cannot have it both ways -- if the process is tainted, if this is not really a trial (as Schiff and the Democrats as a whole argue without documents and witnesses allowed, for the very first time in an impeachment trial), how can the presiding officer not be tainted somehow?
And, if the Chief Justice is tainted, in some fashion some will find the other thing he presides over tainted too. Even if that step is a bit much, yes, I think the Chief Justice is tarnished some here. You have even law professors arguing he has more agency than he appears to have as presiding officer after all. At the very least, yes, the Constitution is tainted by the Republicans not even allowing documents and witnesses, which should have been authorized upfront. Multiple Republicans, even Rubio to the extent he said it was not the deciding matter, saying Trump did something inappropriate (weak tea alone since he also broke the law and abused power) and wrong does help somewhat. Still, it makes the rest that much more wrong since they are admitting that he did something wrong. Plus, hard to say an acquittal vote "clears" him with such talk out there.
We have multiple Republicans, even Sen. Graham (now on team suck-up), horrified with Trump in 2016 and beyond. But, they was not willing to do anything. Two of them, eventually, were willing to vote for witnesses. When it was clear he was not going to be removed all long. The bare minimum here was -- especially as more and more came out about what will be in John Bolton's book and Trump's own legal team said there were doubts on the facts (facts which documents and witnesses would help clarify) -- to have something of a full trial. Impeachment is about the whole process, just like a lawsuit or legislative hearing.
This is why even now that impeachment is of some value, if in part to show how broken the Republican Party truly is. Warren's question was akin to the little boy saying the king has no clothes, embarrassing but true. As to the whole impeachment thing, as noted in the past, feel it has some issues but overall did good too. For instance, the impeachment counts included an allegation that Trump's actions reflect past actions. But, the impeachment presentation seemed to in at times tedious fashion just focus on the Ukraine matter. This allowed the argument that this was some sort of one-off as compared to what it really is -- a synecdoche of a wider problem. Put aside other possible issues like abuse of pardons etc. found in various lists.
And, this came up at times, including the argument that he cannot be trusted in the future. But, especially the Mueller Report, was rarely referenced. By one count, see that reenactment of the second part by actors, Trump obstructed justice ten times under its lights. Trump's campaign team (including his son, which is a tad on point given the whole Hunter Biden thing) also in multiple cases engaged with and it seems actively assisted the Russians. Finally, down to refusal to in person questioning or follow-up to a lame set up written replies, Trump obstructed the investigation.
I had hoped, in part suggested by some of the remarks when the House had debate before the final vote, that the impeachment would provide more of a chance to show the wider nature of Trump's basic unfitness for his office. For instance, there should have been more attention -- repeatedly found myself the only one bringing it up -- that in March that Roberts will be hearing three cases about Trump blocking third party financial document subpoenas, one involving a hush money investigation in New York, two involving the House itself, which in part flagged the relevancy to impeachment investigations! Also noted was the documents were part of examination threats to our elections (starting next week!) and national/international financial institutions in part from foreign interference. Roberts will preside there too.
The absurdity of Monica Lewinsky snarking on Twitter regarding no witnesses ("hey, wish I didn't have to testify, bad hair day!" or something) is topped by one of his many accusers of sexual abuse now requesting DNA to help prove her rape claim. (She alleges Trump defamed her by denying the accusation.) The still ongoing emoluments litigation, which is not totally unrelated at all from the foreign related corruption alleged here, just adds to the mix. Meanwhile, the State of the Union is scheduled before the final impeachment vote is scheduled as of now. So absurd.
Meanwhile, best wishes to Rep. Nadler's ill wife and his family.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!