Impeached: a detailed look at the ambiguous role of the Chief Justice

  • 0
  • 12 January 2020

The House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two counts; abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. It must now settle on a team of ‘impeachment managers’ to make the case against President Trump in a trial. The House is set transfer impeachment over to the Senate for said trial in the coming days.

The United States Senate has the power to try all impeachments and must do so under oath or affirmation. No person can be convicted without two thirds of the members present – notice the word ‘present’. In other words, only two thirds of the Senators present for the vote are required for conviction. Should 90 Senators be present, 60 votes would be enough. Assuming all 100 attend, it needs 67 – an unlikely outcome in this particular impeachment trial, as will be explained later.

The judicial branch of the federal government plays essentially no role in the impeachment process. But any trial requires a judge. Article I, Section III of the US Constitution stipulates that

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.

And that is all. So what does that actually mean in practice?

The Chief Justice does not vote; he can neither acquit nor convict the president of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanours. The Senate must decide on and set the rules of the trial. The rules are voted on before the trial begins, and require a simple majority of 51 votes to take effect. During the impeachment trial, the Chief Justice rules on any motions that may arise. The most senior justice on the Supreme Court presides whilst the Chief Justice is away – in this case, Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991 by George H.W. Bush. If the Chief Justice cannot attend or preside over the impeachment trial for whatever reason, it is unclear whether it can even take place; the constitution says he must.

The agreed upon Senate rules in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, now precedent for future trials, set out just three criteria for the Chief Justice:

– To rule on all questions of evidence.

– To direct all forms of proceedings and …

– …all others not specifically provided for.

At the same time, the Senate’s long-standing rules say “the presiding officer shall have the power to make and issue” orders for conducting the trial, and may rule on all questions of evidence, including but not limited to, questions of relevance [and] materiality.

Proceedings ‘not specifically provided for’ is extremely vague. In all likelihood, it was designed as an insurance policy to have an impartial judge rule on unexpected or unforeseen circumstances that may arise during the trial. These Senate rules were passed by a vote of 100-0, after the majority and minority leaders, Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS), worked extensively together on the details, garnering support from their caucuses.

Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist viewed his role as ministerial and passive. Quoting the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta Iolanthe in 2001, he remarked ‘I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well’. Rehnquist ruled on a few objections. One came from Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), where he noted that Senators’ role in the trial is as a court, not only as jurors. He refused to exclude evidence and place limitations on questions by House Managers. Rehnquist was strict on time during the Clinton debate. He gavelled down Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), the chamber’s most senior Democrat, when he exceeded his limits giving a speech. Rehnquist also overruled the Senate majority leader on multiple occasions by keeping everyone in their seats into the early evening hours when they had asked to leave. Beyond that, Rehnquist always consulted the Senate parliamentarian. Impeachment is a political process, after all, not a legal one.

But that was then, this is now. The Senate is closely and sharply divided and the Chief Justice is John Roberts.

Roberts was appointed to succeed Rehnquist (whom he clerked for in the 1980s) by George W. Bush in 2005. Roberts is a lifelong Republican and conservative justice who joined the Reagan administration after clerking for Rehnquist. He won senators over by promising to be an umpire like judge who would calls ‘balls and strikes’ and not ‘pitch and bat’; not to make the rules but enforce them. It signalled he would not be an activist or ideological judge but a truly impartial and mediating presence.

Roberts has been a champion of restraint and long emphasised the independence of the judiciary from politics. At heart, he is an institutionalist who cares deeply that the American population trust the Supreme Court. His rebuke to Trump, who criticised a circuit judge as an ‘Obama judge’ ruling against his immigration plan, showed this.

In reality, however, Roberts’ rulings on the Court have advanced many conservative aims. These include gutting the Voting Rights Act, loosening campaign funding rules and restricting the power of unions. Then again, in 2012 he ruled to keep a core element of Obamacare in place, and last year struck down an attempt in Louisiana to close its last abortion clinics. Both angered many conservatives.

Presiding over the impeachment trial is likely not a role Roberts is looking forward to, as he will seek to not have the Court and its reputation dragged into the political muck. Following the impeachment trial, the Court is due to issue at least two politically toxic rulings that go straight to the centre of Trump’s presidential powers as the 2020 campaign sets off. The disputes revolve around key questions about executive authority, including whether Trump must answer to congressional subpoenas for his financial records and whether the president is immune from local and state criminal investigations. In short, the reputation of the Supreme Court as an independent, non-political branch of government is on the line in 2020.

With this in mind, Roberts will want to make the trial as bipartisan as possible. He will rule cautiously, prudentially and defer to the senators as much as possible. Republican senators privately hope this means deferring to the majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Assuming similar rules to those in 1999 are adopted, Roberts can be expected to follow and apply these, although with some leeway. The Chief Justice retains the power to render his own decisions that can influence the trial’s trajectory. A majority of senators can always overrule him, though. Nevertheless, Roberts will attempt to come across as non-partisan and try not to sway the results one way or the other. Most importantly, he will want the process to look dignified amongst the day-to-day low-blow tactics coming from the White House.

The Chief Justice may break any logjams – but Roberts may not if it makes him seem partisan. Roberts will be neither sides’ saviour, though he will ensure order is maintained as the Senate sits quietly to hear the evidence. To this end, Roberts will also have a big say over the trial’s schedule. Like Rehnquist, he will probably hear cases on the Court in the mornings and attend the impeachment trial in the afternoons. This task might sound logistical but will have him stifling rambling senators, while forcing them to stay seated for long hours — senators cannot leave their seats.

It might not matter, anyway. Tribal partisanship in the Trump era is rife and the Republicans control the Senate with a 53-47 majority. McConnell has said he would not be a fair juror and is essentially doing as the White House wants. Many other senators on both sides of the aisle have indicated their minds are made up. The Senate can vote to adjourn the trial at any point with a simple majority, as well. President Clinton’s trial took about five weeks but the McConnell wants Trump’s to be as quick as possible. A small number of Republican defections to convict Trump are probable, but assuming all 47 Democrats voted to convict and remove Trump from office, it would be nowhere near the 20 senators that would be required.

Trump’s impeachment comes at a time tensions with Iran are boiling over. The Supreme Court is also set to rule on other high profile controversial topics in 2020. Three more among them are immigrant rights, LGBTQ+ employment rights and abortion. Impeachment is far more serious as it will test the endurance of the US political system in a time of crisis. If Roberts can preserve the institution of the Supreme Court, Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Researchers from Six Countries Discussed the Challenges for International Psychological Security in the Context of the Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • 0
  • 23 November 2020

On 12 November 2020, a panel discussion "Artificial Intelligence and International Psychological Security: Theoretical and Practical Implications" was held at St. Petersburg State University as part of the international conference "Strategic Communications in Business and Politics" (STRATCOM-2020).

The discussion was moderated by Konstantin Pantserev – DSc in Political Sciences, Professor of the St. Petersburg State University,

citește mai mult


  • 0
  • 2 July 2020


This book  , edited by Evgeny Pashentsev, brings together a series of chapters written by Russian and non-Russian scholars

citește mai mult

The Past and Contemporary Russia

  • 0
  • 18 June 2020

The breakaway region of South Ossetia announced in May that its capital, Tskhinvali, would also be known as Stalinir.  Co-naming the capital after the former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, its president – Anatolii Bibilov – stated in his decree that the move was to 'preserve historical memory in connection with the 75th anniversary of  Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945'  – until it had

citește mai mult

Azebaijan, cheia geostrategică a Asiei Centrale

  • 0
  • 13 February 2018

După destrămarea URSS, Azerbaijanul a fost statul ex-sovietic care alături de    republicile Baltice a avut o dezvoltare constantă și durabilă. Desigur, aici pot fi adresate unele critici regimului de la Baku cu privire la democrație, care în opinia multor analiști este doar mimată la Baku. Însă faptul adevărat este că acest stat a reușit să își gestioneze eficient resursele de care dispune pentru a deveni o societate prosperă. I se atribuie Azerbaijanului etichet

citește mai mult

What Can Democrats Learn From Alabama’s Doug Jones?

  • 0
  • 30 November 2017

In ordinary circumstances, Doug Jones would already be preparing to move to Washington DC. The former prosecutor famous for convicting KKK members for a church bombing is up against gay bashing, God and gun lovin’, twice kicked out of elected office, Judge Roy Moore. A man who has eight accusers of sexual assault, all of whom were underage at the time of the allegations.

Yet, if one looks at all the recent polls, they show a ti

citește mai mult

Azerbaidjanul, petrolul și românii

  • 0
  • 7 October 2016

Întotdeauna, statele sunt nevoite să își apere poziția pe marea tablă a geopoliticii, uitându-se cu grijă la vecini, dar și la puterile regionale. Această regulă presupune nu doar poziția ofensivă, ci și valorificare atuurilor, astfel încât să devină piese care contează pe „câmpul de analiză”, iar nu elemente neglijabile, care sunt măturate dintr-o dată de cei ce au suficientă putere să mânuiască piesele.

Caucazul, ca regiune geopolitică, nu face nici ea excepție

citește mai mult

Senate Races to Watch in the 2022 Midterms

  • 0
  • 30 July 2021

An oddity for the party of power, Democrats are favoured to keep the Senate in next year’s mid-terms.

With a 50-50 Senate the Democrats have a favourable map coupled with numerous Republican retirements (open seats are traditionally harder to defend). Recent analysis by Alan L. Abramowitz also showed that to stand a ‘good chance’ of keeping control of the Senate Democrats would only need to maintain single digit lead on the gene

citește mai mult

What Happened to the BRICS?

  • 0
  • 18 June 2021

It was 2012 and I remember what my supervisor told me well: BRICS are the future, and this is where the research (and) money will be going. In my American history class a few months earlier, the lecturer told us: BRICS will define the twenty-first century.

[B]razil, [R]ussia, [I]ndia, [C]hina and [S]outh Africa were the talk of Wall Street for a decade. Just days after 9/11, Goldman Sachs’ Jim O’Neil coined the term in a paper c

citește mai mult

British Labour’s Russia Problem

  • 0
  • 23 April 2021

The British Labour Party were never short of ‘Russia problems’ in the twentieth century. Its first government was brought down by the fraudulent Zinoviev telegram whereas its second, and most successful, helped start the Cold War. But in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn was accused of apologising for Vladimir Putin.

Following the Skripal poisoning, Corbyn called for ‘absolute evidence of guilt’ from the Russian state rather than an outright

citește mai mult