Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump says he would challenge impeachment in Supreme Court [View all]The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,658 posts)It's only in impeachment cases involving a president or VP where the chief justice acts as the presiding officer, who in other impeachment cases would be the president of the Senate - that is, the VP. The reason it was decided that the VP can't be the presiding officer in a presidential impeachment trial is that he would have a vested interest in the outcome (that is, if the president gets impeached the VP gets his job). But the presiding officer isn't intended to act as a real judge but as more of a referee whose job is to keep the process running smoothly, and not to rule on substantive issues. When Rehnquist presided over the Clinton impeachment trial he did almost nothing - mostly he decided when they could take breaks. And even though Rehnquist was a highly partisan GOPer, Clinton was acquitted. Rehnquist did not interfere in any way, and I would not expect Roberts (who is much less of a hack than Rehnquist was, in case anybody's forgotten about that guy) to interfere, either.