Roberts Not Presiding Over Impeachment? #shorts

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
#eaglebrief #shorts

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound

[gsphunter]

I get he's a lawyer, but how many times can this man see me in court?! I starting to think he doesn't ever sleep!

[Bodyknock]

Basically it comes down to the Constitution says that if "The" President is impeached then the Chief Justice will preside. But "The" President is a phrase that is synonymous for "The Sitting President", it wouldn't apply to former presidents. For example, the Constitution also talks about how "The President" has the ability to veto legislation. Obviously former presidents can't veto bills, so "The President" isn't referring to them, it's only referring to "The Sitting President".

Now that being said the Constitution doesn't prohibit the Chief Justice from presiding over the impeachment of former presidents either. It just doesn't require them to do it. So if the Senate wanted to ask the Chief Justice to preside and he agreed then that would be what happened. But in this case neither the Senate nor the Chief Justice seem interested so it'll be Leahy instead.

[ShavaNerad]

Leahy is amazing. I've known him since the 1970s, when he was AG in Vermont, and he's a man of high integrity and respected by many Republicans -- certainly nearly all of them before the Tea Party invaded. He has been chair or minority for Senate Judiciary literally for many decades.

He states:
“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.


“I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career. When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.

[JMUDoc]

Doesn't matter who presides if everybody in the "jury" has already made their mind up.
It might as well be a golden retriever.

[jdatlas]

Whoa, two videos in one day, again? You're spoiling us, really, you are.

[deusexaethera]

Not having Chief Justice Roberts presiding will wreck the credibility of the second impeachment. Congress needs to do things by the book with this one.

[yetanothermetaname]

The fact that these shorts are put on YT is evidence of bravery. I can’t think of many creators that would risk making vids below 8 min.

[biggerdoofus]

Here's how I'm imagining this:
Democrats: "He didn't run a proper court last time. Let's get someone who will"
Chief Justice Roberts: "I'm not going to dispute another branch of government if I don't have to."

[findingfreeblade]

I wish I could just decide I don't want to do part of my job

[Grim_Beard]

Beau of the Fifth Column did a video on this, drawing a distinction between 'the President' (which Trump** is not) and 'a former President' (which Trump** is). The requirement for the Chief Justice to oversee the impeachment (apparently) only applies to 'the President'.

[TheJackAmaral]

Do a video on the legality of robinhood and other brokers stopping trading of certain stocks yesterday!

[KaDaJxClonE]

Chief Justice Roberts was like "nah bro. I did the last one. There is 9 of us, one of ya'll step up and handle this one."

[garethrooney]

I think it is a bit of a cop out on the Chief Justice's side

[scullystie]

Doesn't this only serve to give conservatives a talking point when they inevitably try to deligimize this?

[PolicyThwonk]

I didn't realize Whose Line is it Anyways? prepared me for American politics.

[TinyTusk]

"just making up rules as they yeah what could ever go wrong here

[Ganondorfdude]

The CJ is only required to preside over the trial of a sitting president.

[beware_the_moose]

Ah cmon. We all know what's going to happen. They aren't going to prosecute him. And we all get infuriated.
Again. 😬

[iridiam]

I can't explain exactly why, but the format of these #shorts has my brain always thinking for the first few seconds of every one "is he filming on the toilet?"

[JoeAuerbach]

To be fair, the Supreme Court Justice needs to preside over the impeachment of THE president, but not necessarily A president. Which makes sense, but it's still sort of sticky.