John Roberts’ decision not to preside over the impeachment trial may not give Republicans a legal opening. But it sure gives them a political one. https://t.co/ybTtC8RyEV
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) January 27, 2021
Nice Polite Republican that he is (give me no guff about ‘judicial independence’), Roberts took the slim excuse that there’s no written instructions about impeaching an ex-president to scuffle sideways out of an unpleasant duty… and let the Democratic senators take the full load of a Republican Administration’s misconduct. May he regret this Jesuitical misdeed to the end of days, and may his children grow up telling people ‘it’s a very common surname, Roberts’.
There’s nothing about this situation spelled out in the Originalist Constitution of Roberts’ dreams because its writers never expected a world where the small group of educated, propertied White men who made up the national government would need to prevent a criminal ex-President from taking further advantage of his ill-gotten gains. Roberts doesn’t need an imagination to understand why keeping Trump from running again might be to the benefit of our American commonwealth… but he also doesn’t need much imagination to see how presiding over such a trial would hurt him personally, so fekk a bunch of historical precedent, John Glover Roberts washes his soft, lily-white hands and turns away.
From Bloomberg, “Trump Trial Without Chief Justice Lets GOP Talk Optics, Not Riot”:
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts’s refusal to preside over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial is giving Republicans an opportunity to focus on the Senate’s process rather than the specifics of the insurrection charge against the former president…
Roberts’s decision to skip the current trial without any public explanation leaves a Democrat already on the record as favoring conviction, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, overseeing the trial when it gets underway the week of Feb. 8. That opens it up to accusations of being a more partisan — and less judicial — process than in Trump’s 2020 impeachment.
Republicans are seizing on Roberts’s absence to question the trial’s legitimacy and deflect attention from the substantive charge that Trump incited the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The increasingly partisan nature of the debate was on display Tuesday, when 45 of the Senate’s 50 Republicans supported an unsuccessful bid to declare the case unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office.
“If a Democratic senator is presiding over the impeachment of a Republican president rather than a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice, it makes the entire proceeding look much more partisan,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. “We’re not talking about what’s legal here. We’re talking about political perception.”
Roberts has refused to comment on the impeachment trial, even leaving it to lawmakers to convey that he had declined to take part. His silence has left others to speculate on his reasons and debate the significance of his decision…
Without Roberts, “the optics are going to be manipulated,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. His absence will give cover to “those who may be concerned about condoning the conduct that gave rise to the impeachment article but don’t necessarily want to be on record to convict the president because of the way it might inflame the base.”
And also to those (now in the majority of the Republican party) who don’t give a damn about the law, except as it can be used as a figleaf for their crimes.
On The Road – randy khan – Venice and Environs, Part 5
phdesmond
i’m wondering who would be so wrong-headed as to give Anne Laurie guff.
Yutsano
Dear Lisa Murkowski: the Republican party is making its choice right in front of you. You now have the choice to stand behind your words or just dissolve into Drumpf’s further degradation of the republic. Choose wisely.
Oh and fuck Roberts with a ton of rusty farm implements. Sideways.
lgerard
Too bad they could not have recruited Merrick Garland to preside over the proceedings
HumboldtBlue
Susan Collins nods along…
Yutsano
This is a test.
Okay, Firefox is nigh unusable on the blog tonight. Typing posted very slowly and haltingly. That might be my cue to shuffle off the mortal coil. Aux armes, citoyens! Tomorrow we storm the castle!
Yutsano
@lgerard:
Has he been confirmed yet?
lgerard
@Yutsano:
No
He can be part of the new gig economy by picking up a temp job while waiting for his hearing
Redshift
Ah, the old Republican bullshit of “only a Republican can fairly investigate/prosecute Democrats, because a Democratic would be biased in their favor, and only a Republican can investigate/prosecute a Republican, because a Democrat would be biased against them.”
I think a lot of the classic GOP tropes aren’t working so well these days. Having your life threatened brings remarkable clarity. “Optics,” feh.
lgerard
The situation with Arizona’s republican party election is now approaching peak hilarity, with many party members complaining about “election irregularities” and Kelli “stop the steal” Ward telling them to STFU.
guachi
Doesn’t the Constitution require the Chief Justice to preside?
sab
@guachi: Who cares what the Constitution says anymore?
Yutsano
@guachi:
Yep. But what sanctions can they do to Roberts? He can be compelled to do so. But how?
Amir Khalid
@guachi:
The US Constitution says the Chief Justice presides at a President’s impeachment trial. It doesn’t say who presides at an ex-President’s impeachment trial.
Danielx
Grover Norquist spoke more truly than he knew when he said bipartisanship was just another word for date rape. Or so I recall his pronouncement.
Bipartisanship? Bitches, please.
the pollyanna from hell
Unfaithful judge, incontinent yellow running down his leg,
retires into his chambers. The jury repairs a rip in the family,
and gets on with the job.
John Revolta
@lgerard: Having been part of the exciting gig economy for the last 50 years or so, I’m glad to see we’re finally getting a little class around the place!
janesays
Meh. Roberts sucks, but I don’t see this as a particularly egregious offense on his part – if this was the worst thing he had ever done from his perch as the Chief Justice, we’d be doing pretty well right now. It’s all pretty irrelevant – Trump is getting acquitted. 45 Republican senators made that perfectly clear this week when they voted to throw out the trial before it even happens. Cheetolini’s acquittal was going to happen regardless of whether or not Roberts presided over the trial. The GOP has gone all in on being the pro-insurrection party, and there’s nothing that this impeachment trial will do to change that fact, regardless of who is presiding over it.
sukabi
@guachi: only for sitting presidents.
Tony Jay
Yes, it’s cowardly of Roberts to scuttle under the fridge rather than do his job, and yes, the GOP are going to try and spin this as a partisan squirrel for the distraction of the usual subjects. Nothing about that is surprising or out of character.
It’s equally true that the Democrats don’t have to play by the stale old rules.
Roberts won’t talk about why he’s hiding? So Democrats should be talking about how sad it is that a sitting Chief Justice is either behaving in an openly partisan manner or is too frightened of right-wing violence to preside over the trial of an insurrectionist ex-President. Let that be the lens his cowardice is viewed through rather than adopting the usual Righty framing.
Along the same lines, so what if the GOP won’t accept the legitimacy of Democrats judging them? That’s their problem. Democrats can proudly affirm that the only time you ever get neutral, non-partisan oversight of anything these days is when Democrats hold the reins. It’s true, it’s politically advantageous and it’s something to be proud of, so grab the opportunity to trumpet it far and wide.
tldr: Republicans hope they can ‘one cool trick’ their way out of trouble, but that only works if Democrats subscribe to Zergnet rules.
brantl
@Amir Khalid: The argument for the Democrats to make is that you are a president forever, as noted in the way that we address them, after they leave office, unless of course, you are successfully impeached, which is the point. Why we want the douchebag Roberts to preside is something I am not sure of? That picture is what John Roberts looks like with Trump’s balls in his mouth.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
This is the second totally cowardly, chicken, yellow thing Roberts has done since the inauguration. The Supreme Court also refused to hear the emoluments case against Trump on the grounds that he’s no longer POTUS. Which is bullshit…first, it would be helpful to get a ruling to guide future presidents. Second, other federal officials who take emoluments have to pay the money back, but Trump gets to keep his Ill gotten gains. Third, just letting a POTUS violate the Constitution for four years straight, all the while running out the clock in court, is itself a precedent, and a very bad one.
Zinsky
Wicked good post, Ms. Laurie! Its obvious you are steamed about the abject cowardice of the modern Republican Party, as well you should be! It’s now crystal clear that no crime or collection of crimes that Donald J. Trump committed could be enough for Senate Republicans to vote to convict him. This article indicates that there is even more evidence coming that Trump knew exactly what he was doing in calling his toothless, brain-damaged minions to Washington DC on January 6th. If I were one of the House Impeachment Managers, I would ask the assembled Senate Republicans, “Since you have already indicated that five people dead in a riot incited by President Trump is not enough to convict him, what if the number dead had been fifty? What if the number dead had been 535 or the total number of House Representatives and Senators? What if the rioters had killed everyone of you? Would that be enough to convict??”
John Roberts is a gutless, politically astute, slick operator who is looking to solidify his mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy legacy without getting too dirty. Screw him! He is worthless, in the grand scheme of things. Democrats need to use this opportunity to forever stain and taint the historical record of Donald Trump and his shameful, criminal presidency.
trnc
@Amir Khalid:
“It says Moops!”
I think what the framers didn’t imagine is bad faith arguments by half of the US Senate and the Chief Justice. Given that the constitution explicitly states prevention from holding office again, it’s hard to believe the framers didn’t imagine an official committing misdeeds on his way out the door and that they wouldn’t see that as a reason to prevent that person from holding office again. No law lets any person off the hook just because they quit or were fired before they were prosecuted or sentenced. None.
Roberts is being cute. That’s it.
trnc
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?:
I’d like to see every case that is ruled moot due to running out the clock be labeled “The Roberts Precedent.”
trnc
@Tony Jay:
Yes!
trnc
What’s going on with the visual tab in the comments? I can’t write anything in it.
Ksmiami
@janesays: I’m kind of glad for clarity- “The GOP is an enemy of Democracy and bringer of chaos and death“ is a hell of a message to amplify
PST
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?: I know I’m late to the party here, but I think it is worth mentioning that there were no recorded dissents to the dismissal of the emoluments clause cases. It’s infuriating that Trump ran out the clock and avoided discovery in a case that would have no doubt produced interesting revelations, but that doesn’t make the order wrong. These were civil lawsuits seeking injunctions to prevent Trump from competing unfairly for the business of those wishing to influence him. They did not seek damages, disgorgement of profits, or the enforcement of penalties. With Trump out of office, they really are moot. It therefore doesn’t surprise me that none of the good justices dissented.
citizen dave
@trnc: These last few comments are spot on, as they say (as is AL’s post of course). I had the same thought, Roberts is being too cute, and you nailed that one too “Roberts is being cute. That’s it.”
Both this trial and the emoluments case are HUGE deals, but the latter just seemed like another story given the pandemic, etc.
I hope Roberts never gets to appear again at one of those law student get togethers in public without being asked about this impeachment, and being utterly scoffed at. It really is just too cute.
trnc
When did Grassley decide that Roberts gets to single-handedly create constitutional precedent? Last time I checked, there were 9 justices. Any republican who questions the constitutionality of the senate trial can sue congress and put the question before the entire SCOTUS, which is currently made up of 6 justices appointed by republicans. If they can’t handle those odds, they’re the biggest losers on the planet.
Mai Naem mobile
I know there’s good chance the Roberts court is going to pass a lot of regulatory decisions favoring the powerful(vs. the not powerful) but in some ways I do wonder if the chickens aren’t coming home to roost for Roberts. He has always been action that lead to voter suppression and that’s allowed whackjobs like Boebert and Greene to become congresswomen. The riots have to have scared Roberts. Anyhow, I don’t think having Roberts there is going to make a difference because I think there’s just going to be so much crazy stuff come out, the public is going to be shocked. This isn’t about a call to a minor foreign country.
artem1s
Roberts sidestepping Dolts trial is an act of cowardice. But the importance of this trial is all about getting what happened on record. And if Roberts isn’t there he can’t block say, evidence about that meeting on January 5 being presented and who was there. The 45 GOPers in the Senate voting to stop the trial aren’t concerned with the fate of His Excellency or the future of the party. They care about the breadcrumbs that lead back to their door and the donors that will dump their asses rather than be seen with them ever again. I think there is a fair chance these insurrectionists will spend most of the trial trying to block evidence and then disappear for the vote itself. They will call it a boycott. But it’s really their one last trick to keep the spot light on someone else while they run out the clock on the investigations into their own activities around Jan 6. Only a few of them like Cruz and Graham are in so deep they can’t beg off from the vote. Portman is certainly setting up for disappointing dear leader as are the rest of the fleeing rats. He’s exactly the sort that will put his self interest ahead of party and Trump. Roberts walking away from this is sending the same message. He’s not trusting any of these fools and wants nothing to do with their tendency to double down when they are cornered. Every decision he would have to make would be recorded for history. Better for him if he lets them all hang themselves and he gets to keep his hands clean of their mess. In some ways walking away indicates he thinks there is a fair chance at least some of them will implicate themselves in obstruction of the election. He’s out for the same reason Barr got out early. He knows they committed criminal acts.
SFAW
Re: Roberts not having to preside over the trial of an “ex-president”:
So if the Murderer-in-Chief had been impeached on 11/10/20, and one or more Articles of Impeachment had been sent to the Senate on 11/15/20, and then Traitor Turtle dragged the start of the trial to 1/21/21, Roberts would have said “sorry, too late, he’s now an ex-president according to SOME people.” ?
SFAW
“I want people to call you Justice Run-away. I want children laughing outside your door ’cause they found the house of Justice Run-away.”
BroD
Chief Justice (Except When It’s Inconvenient) Roberts is the little boy who saw the crack in the dike and ran home because he didn’t want to get wet.
Barbara
The sense of denial about what is happening to the Republican Party seems to be quite intense for those who have staked their lives and careers on it outside of the realm of electoral politics.
Even if I am willing to stipulate that there are conspiracy theorists and crackpots at edges of the political spectrum on both sides, there is no parallel in U.S. history to what we are seeing now: First, the incursion of the crackpots and conspiracy theorists into mainstream elected officials at the federal level, and second, the outright threats of violence and mayhem that are being fused with the Republican mainstream.
John Roberts is running away and hiding from it. He’s not alone, but what makes him particularly contemptible is that unlike most of the other people caught in a bind between principles and career, he has lifetime job security and all the bodyguards he wants.
Another Scott
@trnc: +1
This stuff isn’t hard. The GOP and Roberts are throwing chaff. People shouldn’t fall for it.
Cheers,
Scott.
J R in WV
If Mr Roberts is unwilling to undertake the tougher parts of his job description, perhaps Madame Speaker should openly consider impeachment proceedings against a “judge” who refuses to undertake his sworn duty?
Maybe said “judge” should lose his job he is refusing to perform, as well as all the benefits/pension accrued to his account?
Hardball, people. Mr Roberts appears to have joined the Qanon insurrection, and is for sure giving aid and comfort to the former president and treasonous inciter of insurrection~!!!~
Article 14 is pretty clear about treason, insurrection, leaders of same!!!
And if someone ( and a jury) decides it is treason, we hang people for that.
Adios, Mr Roberts!!! You traitorous sack of scum!
Gloomyjim
Well, if Chief Justice Roberts is uninterrested in doing his job I would suggest retirement as a viable option. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen as one gets older and is unwilling to keep working (especially when one is well off as our justices seem to be)?