4430

For you, it was the day CLWheeljack ruined a lifetime spent avoiding that movie. But for him, it was Tuesday.

4431
4432

Here’s a short movie you might find to be more important (by the Washington Post)

4433

Roberts is one of those rare judges who actually has some history of being principled.

I will never forget that this man upheld the ACA, when he easily could have just gone partisan and killed it.

That’s what our judges are supposed to do. Rule in accordance with law based on the facts that are present. Not contort whatever they need to so their “side” wins. And frankly, that goes in both directions.

That’s why it’s gross that court packing is such an important thing. Because it shouldn’t be nearly as big a deal as it is, if we were actually appointing judges who did their job.

4434

It’s pretty damn cheesy, but it’s Raul Julia’s last cinematic film role, and he knocks it out of the park. He’s a hilarious character as M. Bison. Channeling Adams for sure.

4435

So yeah, Roberts is great. When I was working for SCOTUS he was a solicitor general, and argued many cases I sat in on. One time I say next to his wife and she couldn’t have been more proud of him. “That’s my husband up there”, she told me reverently. I ran into him several times after that. Then, when Rehnquist died, he was a pall bearer at his funeral and carried Jefe up the main staircase to the main hall where he laid in state.

A few months later he was appointed as the Chief Justice. Everyone respected him, and he is really nice. Eats a cheeseburger most days. Bright eyed and intelligent, is how it’d describe him.

His old boss presided over an impeachment trial, and now he gets to. I doubt he will sew on the golden stripes for this one.

4436

I wonder if he’s low-key excited about the prospect, because it’s such a rare legal thing. Like if he watches the impeachment news and the back of his head is like “man, I hope I get to do that”, regardless of the actual charges, just as like a legal nerd thing.

4437

Near 100% chance, he is a true legal nerd. Excitmeent is probably not quite the emotion, but yeah, he’s thinking about it.

4438

Here’s a question that i was wondering about yesterday.

So, i know that the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate.

But how much power does he have in that trial? As much as he would in a normal court? Meaning, can he actually make rulings that affect the outcome of the trial?

Because the lack of such immediate judicial action has been a big favor in impeachment proceedings thus far. Trump’s sycophants have made totally absurd, absolutely unsupportable claims about not having to answer questions, surrounding notice of executive privilege (while never actually claiming executive privilege had been invoked by the president), or nonsensical ideas of absolute immunity.

Could Roberts just make rulings during the Senate trial, essentially overruling executive objections and forcing witnesses to testify?

Because that would be a very good thing.

4439

My question is who runs Trump’s defense? I can’t find anything online about it, but maybe my Google-fu is weak.

I mean, someone should be able to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t they?

Edit: tried another round of Google and it was actually easy, barely an inconvenience, to find the answer: Trump will have defense lawyers. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let it be Rudy.

A team of lawmakers from the House, known as managers, play the role of prosecutors. The president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the jury.

4440

I think this is a very open question. The Constitution doesn’t have much detail other than the basics, so I think Roberts could do what he wants, as long as it’s legal.

I mean the Senate will define some parts of it, but I don’t think the Senate can dictate how the Chief Justice can behave.

But I dunno.

4441

My guess is that this is rather vague and there are not overarching rules that drive the impeachment process. It probably says something like “Tried in the Senate, Chief Justice presiding” in the Constitution. The actual rules are probably being discussed right now. I would argue that the CJ has a pretty wide latitude to run things as he sees fit.

4442

I read that the Senate could vote to overrule the Chief Justice on things like subpoenas from the House Managers. It would not be a good look, though.

4443

The Constitution says the Chief Justice shall “preside” and it also provides that the Senate makes its own rules.

The Senate has in the past passed rules to govern impeachments and those rules provide the Chief Justice can rule on things like admissibility of evidence and compelling witnesses, but the Senate can override that with a vote. The Senate could change those rules before the Trump Trial but I doubt they will change them in major ways. Likewise, the Senate is not super-likely to overrule Roberts’ legal rulings unless they have a clear argument or they are really F’ing desperate.

So, the long and short is, Roberts will probably be able to rule on things like which witnesses come in and can probably also enforce subpoenas on people like Mulvaney and Pompeo, and also rule on issues like executive privilege.

As to how Roberts will rule, right now I see three options: 1)rule of law (make a ruling when it comes up, no punting, and following the core Constitutional principals to make Mulvaney et al. actually testify - I give this option a 40% chance) 2)Punt Motherfucker Punt (“defer” to the full Supreme Court or to the “many ongoing cases” or some other such BS to avoid making a quick ruling - this is a terrible look for Roberts and yet evading judicial responsibility is one of the key ways conservative courts have fucked the country over the last 2.5 centuries: barring the court house door with mootness, justiciability and standing arguments, punting on “political questions”, finding the courts don’t have the power to do anything but jack off, etc. – due to my current cynical view of where the US federal appeals courts are headed packed full of Trump/McConnell appointees, I give this option a 30% chance) and 3)Full GOP BS (rule against the rule of law swiftly and decisively, upholding absolute immunity and other worthless and lawless “legal” doctrines, giving Trump as much of a pass as possible. - I give this option a 30% chance also.)

So those odds don’t seem great but they are probably no worse than the general odds with the supreme court in general these days. (One of the things I don’t think people have grasped yet is that right now, our current US Supreme Court is really bad, really conservative, really willing to crap on precedent and tear down decades of case law on many issues beyond just abortion and obvious GOP talking points: we are about to see a shrinkage of federal regulatory power, a diminishment of Congressional power more generally, and a bunch of other bad decisions. Everyone is focused on Trump, rightfully, and yet the judicial dagger is coming for the back of the American republic in the next few years.)

4444

They are surely just as good, since Roberts is effectively the swing vote on the Court. If Roberts would allow the subpoenas when argued before the Court, he will allow them in the Senate. And that approach is much, much more fast.

4445

Oh I see it. And when we put a man on the supreme court who ruled that a man who was fired for leaving his truck, when staying was literally life threatening, was not wrongfully terminated and that he had no right to act to protect his life over his employers property?

Yeah I see how fucked we are.

4446

I think some scenario of this is near 80%. They are going to go all-in on this.

4447

I heard Roberts speak, maybe a decade ago, when he told a story about interviewing law clerks. He said he’d have his secretary leave a box of donuts in the waiting room for the applicants, with no napkins in sight. Then, when he spoke with them, he’d look to see if they had any powdered sugar on their clothing. If they weren’t laidback enough to have a donut and risk a mess, it was a knock against them.

I get the folksy angle he was trying to convey, but at the time it struck me as trying too hard. So I’m glad to hear another take suggesting he’s down to earth, given that he might be carrying my hopes for our democracy.

4448

That’s a pretty mixed example. The portion of that ruling that made the Medicaid expansion optional is a breathtakingly radical ruling. The idea that the Federal government can’t impose conditions on the use of Federal money because the states have ‘equal’ sovereignty is, well, crazy. It’s true he balked at killing the entire law, but he surely castrated it with that ruling.

I think Roberts is motivated more than the others by his view of what historians will think of him, and that mitigates to some extent what is his bog standard conservative Republican view of the constitution.

4449

That portion was joined by radical conservatives Kagan and Breyer.

And it wasn’t completely unprecedented. The SCOTUS found in 1987 that the federal government could condition highway funds on states enacting a drinking age of 21. But they also pointed out that the amount of money at stake was relatively small, and they warned that conditions on a much larger federal grant would be unconstitutionally coercive. So when Kagan remarked that Medicaid grants were a “boatload” of money, the writing was on the wall…