• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trial managers can ask Roberts to call witnesses. The Reps certainly won't but will the Dems?

Will they do it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Total voters
    15

Gabe323

Senior member
Apr 29, 2002
248
258
146
Can they really? Dems will for sure to make the Reps go on record of possibly overriding Roberts.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,925
9,587
136
I kind of doubt it but Roberts isn't going to cross that line anyway so the question is moot.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,797
5,138
136
As I understand it, Roberts has the power to call witnesses any time he sees fit. Democrats don’t even have to ask. But I think the Democrats works rather have Reps on record as voting against witnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Feb 4, 2009
28,652
9,247
136
As I understand it, Roberts has the power to call witnesses any time he sees fit. Democrats don’t even have to ask. But I think the Democrats works rather have Reps on record as voting against witnesses.
Sort of agree but it’s one of those weird constitutional things that isn’t defined well.
Regardless it is obvious Roberts does not want to be in the room, he would much prefer not to be this judge.
He won’t rock the boat.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
I don't know what Roberts will or won't do. We certainly do seem, though, to be witnessing a profile in abject cowardliness, party over country. What reason should we have to think Roberts would be any different. Everything Trump touches dies.
 

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
3,467
1,036
136
I voted yes, but...it was reluctantly and with a lot of hopeful/wishful thinking. Dems have been pussyfooting too much and not cutting straight enough to points/facts. They need to get 'mean' and they're not doing that.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,912
2,320
126
Shouldn't the question be, why wouldn't they do it? Is there one single reason not to call a witness that would strengthen their case?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,645
10,694
136
I voted yes, but...it was reluctantly and with a lot of hopeful/wishful thinking. Dems have been pussyfooting too much and not cutting straight enough to points/facts. They need to get 'mean' and they're not doing that.
If Dems in house used their inherent contempt power they would have documents and witnesses by now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,315
4,034
136
I voted yes . . . aspirationally. Like hal said, though, can't predict. My one hope is that Roberts, as he did when he voted to uphold Obamacare, will act with a keen eye on how he will be remembered by history. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. Trusting any even mildly right wing public figure to do the right thing has not really panned out for me in this season of THE FAT FUCK ascendant.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,315
4,034
136
If Dems in house used their inherent contempt power they would have documents and witnesses by now
Not so. They didn't because they'd have been tied up in the courts beyond the 2020 Pres. election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,134
13,979
136
Not so. They didn't because they'd have been tied up in the courts beyond the 2020 Pres. election.
The House doesn't need to go to court to enforce a subpoena. They can send the Sargent at Arms and Capitol Police to round by the non-respondents. It is an inherent power of Congress.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,315
4,034
136
The House doesn't need to go to court to enforce a subpoena. They can send the Sargent at Arms and Capitol Police to round by the non-respondents. It is an inherent power of Congress.
Ok, but, imho, that was never going to fly, politically.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,388
3,035
126
I voted yes . . . aspirationally. Like hal said, though, can't predict. My one hope is that Roberts, as he did when he voted to uphold Obamacare, will act with a keen eye on how he will be remembered by history. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. Trusting any even mildly right wing public figure to do the right thing has not really panned out for me in this season of THE FAT FUCK ascendant.
Plus history will over shadow him anyways...after all the SCOTUS is a TRUMP elected court....Robert`s can always claim his hands were tied..
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,388
3,035
126
The House doesn't need to go to court to enforce a subpoena. They can send the Sargent at Arms and Capitol Police to round by the non-respondents. It is an inherent power of Congress.
It will be a cold day in hell when that happens...or do elephants fly??
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,844
19,530
136
Plus history will over shadow him anyways...after all the SCOTUS is a TRUMP elected court....Robert`s can always claim his hands were tied..
He can side with the "liberals," as he has done recently. In this case, anyway, he's his own person. I definitely don't see him as someone trying to make noise such that he becomes a pivotal character in this event, but it's also beyond him, now--what matters is if he chooses to side with the country, or the GOP sycophants. That's more important than anything.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,388
3,035
126
He can side with the "liberals," as he has done recently. In this case, anyway, he's his own person. I definitely don't see him as someone trying to make noise such that he becomes a pivotal character in this event, but it's also beyond him, now--what matters is if he chooses to side with the country, or the GOP sycophants. That's more important than anything.
Whats interesting is Robert`s can turn against Trump if he so chooses and there is not a thing Trump can do about it! After all once appointed to the Supreme Court...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,844
19,530
136
Whats interesting is Robert`s can turn against Trump if he so chooses and there is not a thing Trump can do about it! After all once appointed to the Supreme Court...
Well, Trump could always ask some Russian gangsters that he doesn't know and has obviously never in his life, to take him out ......to dinner, probably?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
The premise is incorrect. A vote was taken to allow witnesses in the Clinton trial. Per the rules, a simple majority of Senators can overrule the person presiding. Roberts will likely put the question to the body w/o ruling at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,553
1,772
126
Whats interesting is Robert`s can turn against Trump if he so chooses and there is not a thing Trump can do about it! After all once appointed to the Supreme Court...
he can be impeached, unlikely but it is possible.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,645
10,694
136
Not so. They didn't because they'd have been tied up in the courts beyond the 2020 Pres. election.
If the house pulled their inherent contempt lever they could have the Sgt at Arms of the House and a security detail march over to the executive branch and arrest someone. That person would either spend a long time in the house jail or protect themselves with their own security detail. That would force a real constitutional crisis and the courts would be forced into an express decision. Remember the SC rendered an express decision in Bush V Gore to beat the certification deadline of the electoral college.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,315
4,034
136
If the house pulled their inherent contempt lever they could have the Sgt at Arms of the House and a security detail march over to the executive branch and arrest someone. That person would either spend a long time in the house jail or protect themselves with their own security detail. That would force a real constitutional crisis and the courts would be forced into an express decision. Remember the SC rendered an express decision in Bush V Gore to beat the certification deadline of the electoral college.
I stand corrected. You and IronWing are, of course, correct.

However, this option is so "obscure" and extreme that the Dems, never united in their ideological fanaticism like the current Repubs seem to be, did not go there. The possibility of a huge backlash from the "low info" masses in the electorate alone is part of what made them shy away from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawp and dank69

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,173
3,165
136
It's the Dems were are taking about here, so no, they won't do it.

If the it were the Rs tho...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY