General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow much pressure is on Chief Justice John Roberts?
Adam Schiff committed the Democrats to supporting whatever decision he made about "executive privilege" or the relevancy of witnesses or other rulings. He asked if Republicans would do the same. Jay Sekulow said, "No way".
If Democrats are successful with a motion to get the Chief Justice to rule on witnesses or executive privilege, will the Republicans vote against giving the Chief Justice those powers?
Will McConnell find a way to shut it down before it gets that far? It will only take 51 votes to defeat any motion.
The debate was about the expediency of a quick Court decision and the unnecessary delays in a drawn-out court battle. The Republicans would have no part of it. They want it over immediately. The fix is in.
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)For any other sentient jurist, it would be a no-brainer under these circumstances.
By many accounts, he's quite aware of his legacy. I would hope he would recognize exactly what the Republicans are arguing here - that there are no longer any checks on the executive branch by the legislative branch. And Barr's assault on the DoJ should also be factored in to his decision, as it's indicative of how the Exec views the Judiciary (so defiance of the SCOTUS is definitely possible, if not already underway as we speak).
I hope his legacy-awareness is so acute that even *he* can't see himself presiding over such a diseased process while turning his back on the US Consitution.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)...is that he would be taking the Democratic side over the Republican argument and the partisan divides are like swift currents, that are difficult to cross.
It would be historic. It might save the country from having to go thru this type of crisis in the future? If he were to make a ruling on Witnesses and on Executive Privilege, we would have a precedent to return to. In that way, it could help the country, in my opinion.
I would think the "executive privilege" ruling would be the less difficult? However, the White House lawyers are arguing "absolute immunity". It's about setting a new ruling for "separation of powers". They would not necessarily be the same as they are today.
However, it would be the job of Roberts to make it "fair" for both sides. He could go so far as to rule that any trial in the Senate must have witnesses. He could be an historic figure.
But, it appears the cake is baked. The fix is in. The horse has left the barn.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Apparently the fix is in . . .
As Senator Harris said (not actual quote) "no trial no acquittal". Majority of Americans will see that this was a sham and a cover up which will follow them (Republicans) for the rest of their lives.
As to shithole, he continues to do harm to the USA in the meantime and each day his base gets smaller and smaller.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)There isnt any reason to believe that he buys into the CJ is really the judge in the trial and should rule on these matters spin. The if Democrats are successful with a motion already assumes too much.
The move is not intended to win the point... its intended to lay the groundwork for post-acquittal rhetoric about the lack of fairness in the trial.