Odds Roberts overrides the Senate rules and allow witnesses?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cuddles, Jan 19, 2020.

  1. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    I'm sure it's a pipe dream but am not too familiar w/impeachment trials. In the name of impartiality and truth finding, how much power does the presiding judge have? Just a moderator, or have actual judicial power?
     
  2. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    You need to do some reading up on this. This is an impossibility, thus the chances are zero.
     
    elderado likes this.
  3. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    I'll wait to hear from another constitutional scholar, thanks.
     
    Frederick Foresight likes this.
  4. Bugenhagen

    Bugenhagen

    Well it seems from watching news last night a simply majority vote can override Roberts so the jurors have a strange second role, to also be judges.

    Of course it looks bad if they overrule however everything with Trump looks bad, he even made gold look bad.
     
  5. He is a facilitator who can decide non-controversial things where the Senate does not have enough heartburn over them to overrule him.

    There are also controversial areas where he might make a ruling and even though it is a major issue, the Senate may just let it stand rather than over-rule it because they the majority has already decided they are okay with it. The witness issue is like that. They can overrule the Justice but if he makes a decision that is okay with them, they may leave it alone because they want to hang it on the Justice and make it look like they are just following his ruling. In the end though, Roberts does not control it. They do.

    But in regard to the way you worded the question: "odds that roberts overrules" the answer is ZERO. Does not work that way. He lacks the authority to do so. He may decide in favor of witnesses though, and as discussed, the Senate may not overrule it. But that does not mean he has ultimate decisionmaking power if they do not like it.

    Roberts decisions do carry weight though if one party or the other want to allege that the process is a sham. They can use and abuse Robert's decision if it supports their cause. But that is just for political purposes- not legal authority.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  6. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    ---As indicated---
     
  7. Wallet

    Wallet

    I believe Roberts has already weighed in on the topic saying he hopes he can follow in his predecessor’s (Rehnquist) footsteps. “I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.”
     
  8. Renquist was smart enough though to know that it is at least important to look good though. Thus he added those frigging gold stripes to his robe for the impeachment process and kept them.

    Not sure, though, that everyone agreed that his Lord Chancellor image looked good or whether it was goofy. But hey, he was havin fun and had nothing else to do there so why not?

    Yep. Renquist be stylin'.[​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Wallet likes this.
  9. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    The last two impeachments have been a joke------in fact even the Andrew Johnson impeachment was ridiculous in nature. The founders wanted elections to be where choices were made and not by this process.----This was supposed to be a last resort----what a hilarity.
     
  10. Buy1Sell2

    Buy1Sell2

    One item to mention not related to the question posed by the IP------if witnesses are voted to be allowed in, this trial will last forever with each side going to court over each witness and whether they should be allowed to testify. Having the trial last forever is exactly what the idiot Dems want while they search for the real "killer".
     
    #10     Jan 20, 2020
    Optionpro007 likes this.