Justice Roberts' blunder

[BoyNextDoor]

Roberts has a duty to be presiding.


I am not sure why is is abdicating his constitutional duty but his refusal to do his duty is grounds for his removal, IMO.

 

[phrodeau]

He lost a lot of sleep last time.

 

[FGB]

Not really.

Can't remove someone from office that is not there. So he thinks that he would not have jurisdiction in that case and therefore no case.

People should have listened to him.

 

[KeithD]

It doesn't really matter. How the Republicans vote doesn't matter either, other than in whether or not real Republicans can regain their party or not.

The trial will happen, the evidence presented will be damning for all to see (it already is; we've all seen enough ourselves to know Trump tried to instigate a coup, not caring who died or how much damage it did to the country), and Trump and his supporters will be toast in the eyes of history.

 

[icanhelp1]

Roberts has a duty to be presiding.


I am not sure why is is abdicating his constitutional duty but his refusal to do his duty is grounds for his removal, IMO.

He has a duty to preside over a trial of a standing president, is not obligated to preside over one of Nancy's narcissistic sham impeachments.

 

[icanhelp1]

It doesn't really matter. How the Republicans vote doesn't matter either, other than in whether or not real Republicans can regain their party or not.

The trial will happen, the evidence presented will be damning for all to see (it already is; we've all seen enough ourselves to know Trump tried to instigate a coup, not caring who died or how much damage it did to the country), and Trump and his supporters will be toast in the eyes of history.

MORE TDS LADEN BULLSHIT!

 

[LukSkyFokker]

MORE TDS LADEN BULLSHIT!

45 is literally on trial so TDS would only apply to morons like you who defend the crminial.

 

[FGB]

It doesn't really matter. How the Republicans vote doesn't matter either, other than in whether or not real Republicans can regain their party or not.

The trial will happen, the evidence presented will be damning for all to see (it already is; we've all seen enough ourselves to know Trump tried to instigate a coup, not caring who died or how much damage it did to the country), and Trump and his supporters will be toast in the eyes of history.

The trouble with this is what goes around comes around... when hatred goes too far, the country suffers.

Like bulling or hazing in school. it's all fun for the Bullies until the kid or kids have had enough and hauls out some iron and goes shooting. Then people can't understand what happened... they were just having fun.

Funny thing about evidence... not always seen in the same light by different people and often reminds the people on the juries that the authorities sometimes take things too far.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

The trouble with this is what goes around comes around... when hatred goes too far, the country suffers.

Like bulling or hazing in school. it's all fun for the Bullies until the kid or kids have had enough and hauls out some iron and goes shooting. Then people can't understand what happened... they were just having fun.

Funny thing about evidence... not always seen in the same light by different people and often reminds the people on the juries that the authorities sometimes take things too far.

45 was the ultimate bully and you vehemently supported him. Shut the fuck up about "what goes around comes around" bullshit.

 

[FGB]

45 was the ultimate bully and you vehemently supported him. Shut the fuck up about "what goes around comes around" bullshit.

Ha!

You and a few others wish!

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Ha!

You and a few others wish!

I was being facetious - you're entertaining as fuck.

 

[Dribble]

Roberts has a duty to be presiding.


I am not sure why is is abdicating his constitutional duty but his refusal to do his duty is grounds for his removal, IMO.

No...he is correct. Sitting Presidents only. Any other entity is by choice.

 

[2021Noobie]

Regardless!

He should be presiding as precedent!
To leave it be means he thinks the
INSURRECTION was not in need of
serious response without consideration
to Party!

He should be there to make it MORE OFFICIAL

Bet you Trump tries to take this to Supreme Court later
cuz.. he is an ass

 

[CornusKousa]

Regardless!

He should be presiding as precedent!
To leave it be means he thinks the
INSURRECTION was not in need of
serious response without consideration
to Party!

He should be there to make it MORE OFFICIAL

Bet you Trump tries to take this to Supreme Court later
cuz.. he is an ass

It's not....riots aren't insurrections or coups.

They are "mostly" peaceful protesting.

 

[Dribble]

Regardless!

He should be presiding as precedent!
To leave it be means he thinks the
INSURRECTION was not in need of
serious response without consideration
to Party!

He should be there to make it MORE OFFICIAL

Bet you Trump tries to take this to Supreme Court later
cuz.. he is an ass

Dude...this is not a criminal trial. Learn what an impeachment trial is...then come back.

 

[CornusKousa]

Dude...this is not a criminal trial. Learn what an impeachment trial is...then come back.

It's a hysterical TDS crazed "ORANGE MAN BAD!!!" lunatic.....you were 10x as worse just a few weeks back....every other word out of your mouth was "fascist" because you were just THAT triggered.

Shit it was so bad people made music videos of you on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hYrNsRoTs

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bet you Trump tries to take this to Supreme Court later
cuz.. he is an ass

Constitution specifically states Congress shall have the sole authority to try a President for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Supreme Court lacks standing here.

 

[phrodeau]

Dude...this is not a criminal trial. Learn what an impeachment trial is...then come back.

The criminal trials come later. Then civil trials to recover the costs Trump’s liable for.

 

[FGB]

I was being facetious - you're entertaining as fuck.

I'm told I'm pretty entertaining doing that too.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No...he is correct. Sitting Presidents only. Any other entity is by choice.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

I don't see any modifier of "sitting" or "current" Trump was the POTUS at the time of impeachment. Roberts should preside.

I erred in that Roberts "refused". I read that he was not asked, due to the precedent in 2010 where they pulled some corrupt prick off the U.S. district court, but he should be presiding as per the COTUS.

 

[LLCox]

MORE TDS LADEN BULLSHIT!

Screams the clown with TCS (trump cult syndrome)

 

[colddiesel]

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

I don't see any modifier of "sitting" or "current" Trump was the POTUS at the time of impeachment. Roberts should preside.

Wake up! Trump was President at the time of impeachment. He is not President at the time of the trial of that impeachment. Impeachment and trial are two separate events. Roberts is exactly correct.

 

[icanhelp1]

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

I don't see any modifier of "sitting" or "current" Trump was the POTUS at the time of impeachment. Roberts should preside.

I erred in that Roberts "refused". I read that he was not asked, due to the precedent in 2010 where they pulled some corrupt prick off the U.S. district court, but he should be presiding as per the COTUS.

Trump is a civilian.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Trump is a civilian.

Not when he committed the crime.

 

[YDB95]

He has a duty to preside over a trial of a standing president, is not obligated to preside over one of Nancy's narcissistic sham impeachments.

For once you're partially right. The Constitution only obligates the Chief Justice to serve as judge in the case of a sitting president's impeachment. He could preside in this case if he wanted to, but he didn't want to.