I am not so naive to believe that SCOTUS justices don’t know how to play the Beltway game, and get their messages out subtly through proxies/allies. You really think Rand Paul is just a mind reader who is willing to make statements wantonly without first making sure that he isn’t stepping on toes/ misrepresenting his allies?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
No on the first, yes on the second.
Ok. Agree to disagree. I give a seasoned Senator more credit than that. No matter what their party is, if they’ve been around for a couple terms, they know the game. Maybe you’re unaware, but the Judiciary and Legislative branches do talk to each other...
Truly, The Supremes don't really play that game. Life appointment, in his case, Chief Justice for life. No constituents. What is the gain? Cases come and cases go. There is a new docket every year. Most of the lawyers that argue before them they have seen many times. It is a small clique. If someone knows enough to predict a Justice's position it is because they have probably written on something related a dozen times or more before. As mentioned above, I think they do, especially Roberts, care about the image and legitimacy of the court. Nothing positive for the Court comes from a Justice stooping down to the level of a politician.
I always come back to the most immutable, human nature. What is in it for him? What is his motivation? Why signal he doesn't approve when he could speak his mind with one of the loudest megaphones in our government, a Supreme Court Opinion.
Precedent.
You are certainly entitled to believe that he could be played by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
I throw my lot in with everyone else saying he’s not some brighted-eyed young idealist fresh off the train from the farm.
But see, this is the beauty of America. We’re allowed to have our own opinions. And based off of the people who seem to agree with yours, I’m sleeping just fine at night.
I have no earthly idea what you are referencing. If you are talking about member here like @Brett327 and @BigRed389 I can't imagine how what they think on this subject, of all things, could possible effect your sleep. The republic does not stand or fall on this issue.
Elaborate please. What is his interest in precedent here? Presiding over the trial sets no legal precedent. Those are all Senate procedural precedents.
I'm going to use a Brett quote here so I'm immune from prosecution, but when you have people whose brains are broken liking what you're posting, to me that means you're on the wrong side of an argument.
I have no interest in your petty personal beefs. We have got along fine. Please tell me how Roberts and the Court benefits from a unspoken signal he doesn't approve of the trial. I just don't see it. Not their MO.
A law professor who wrote a book about impeachment said that he’s shirking his duty by not being there.
As far as the “petty personal beefs”, if you don’t find it odd that the never-Trumpers are in your camp here then congratulations.
“Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a recent book on impeachment, said he would have preferred that Roberts preside over the upcoming trial, even though he believes his absence is constitutional.
Bowman told The Hill the arguments being lobbed by Senate Republicans shows that Roberts's non-participation has already given them "another procedural excuse to vote against conviction in a case that's a slam dunk on the facts."
"It would be better to have Roberts in the chair. But not, I think, an error of constitutional dimension not to have him there," he said. "Still, since I have reason to think that Roberts was requested to appear, but declined, I find myself disappointed in him. I think he's shirking here."”
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
Literally everything in both the Senate and SCOTUS rests on precedent. I’m not just talking case law alone, but also the politicial and parliamentary precedents.
I’m not trying to be condescending at all in this next comment: there are some excellent books by poli sci scholars who have examined the importance of precedent in the SCOTUS and Senate. I will have to dig for the titles but I trust their expertise on the topic. There are/were many long serving Senators on both sides of the aisle who cared more about protecting the institution of the Senate than their own singular/partisan goals. For example, Biden and Strom Thurmomd were good friends.
The Supreme Court in general and this Chief Justice in particular have long followed the precedent of not getting involved in non justiciable things. I fail to see why he would express an opinion.
I know you want him to get involved, but that doesn't mean he wants to.
We could argue all day about late Impeachment. I have stated that I am on the fence and would prefer a legal arguement to help me. The history, law and precedent is the Chief presides for a Presidential trial. Trump is not the President. That is consistent with the argument over late impeachment that Article 2 section 4 refers to the sitting president only. I have read plenty that argues otherwise. Hense my weakening position.
What you present actually agrees that it is proper for Roberts to not sit. The dude just wishes he had so the GOP could not make procedural arguements against the trial. WTF. I don't follow your position. Remove Trump and Brett from the arguement and try again.
Of course. Lets try again. WHAT VALUE DOES ROBERTS OR THE COURT GET OUT OF HIM SUGGESTING SOMETHING BY HIS ACTIONS TO MAKE PRECEDENT IN THE SENATE. I understand precedent both in the court and the Senate. I don't care about precedent. I am wondering why Roberts would be interested in setting precedent in the Senate. I don't think he is. He read the plain language of the Constitution looked at the history and decided. Big deal.