Q: Why is is the House is unwilling to follow precedent from previous impeachment proceedings?
A: Because no one will #sayhisname.
Oh, Boy!
Nancy and her rogue ass crew over there in Judiciary really, really want to get their hands on that sealed, grand jury information, identified in the Mueller Report.
The grand jury material can be released through judicial proceeding, if only Nancy and her rogue ass crew would initiate judicial proceedings by honoring voting rights of the body and bring the impeachment vote to the House Floor.
I seem to recall another case where a federal district judge said the House has no voting rights, but that was filed in Detroit.
Speaking of Constitutional Crisis, I wonder if John Roberts has ever considered on what to do to initiate proceedings to impeach himself?
#sayhisname
Impeachment: Chief Justice John Roberts would be the 'umpire' in Senate trial of President Trump
Impeaching a U.S. president might not be the be-all-end-all for their career. We explain why this is the case. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist was a busy man on Jan. 20, 1999. The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton was in its second week, and Rehnquist had to stop presiding over an oral argument at the Supreme Court, cross the street, and preside over the Senate.
One of the lawyers arguing before the high court that day was John Roberts. Once one of Rehnquist's law clerks at the high court, Roberts could be juggling the same two jobs as his former boss soon.
If President Donald Trump is impeachedby the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate, it will be Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice in 2005, running the show. Those who know him best say he's a perfect fit for the job.
"I've argued in front of him 39 times, and I think what comes across is that he cares deeply about institutions," says Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general who, like Roberts before him, heads appellate litigation at Hogan Lovells.
Like Rehnquist – who once quipped that as the Clinton impeachment trial's presiding officer he "did nothing in particular and did it very well" – Katyal says Roberts would "work hard to be scrupulously fair in carrying out a unique constitutional function."
Roberts, 64, this week began his 15th term as chief justice of the United States with a bang. The high court heard three major civil rights cases that will determine if gay and transgender people are protected by a 1964 federal law barring employment discrimination based on "sex."
In the next few months, his day job will include hearing cases on abortion, immigration, religion and gun rights, all on the eve of the 2020 presidential election.
What's more, Roberts now sits in the middle of the Supreme Court figuratively as well as literally. With the retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy last year, he has become the closest thing to a swing vote between four conservative and four liberal justices.
Balls and strikes
Roberts' last tango with the Senate came in 2005, when he defined the chief justice's role as that of an umpire calling balls and strikes en route to his 78-22 confirmation. Since then, he has tried to keep the Supreme Court out of politics – not always with success.
When Trump criticized an "Obama judge" last year over an immigration ruling, Roberts issued a rare rebuke. "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," he said. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
During an appearance in New York City late last month, Roberts said that appraisal applies to the justices as well.
“When you live in a politically polarized environment, people tend to see everything in those terms," he told about 2,000 people at Temple Emanu-el in Manhattan. "That’s not how we at the court function.”
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment