Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Second Trump Impeachment
The week of February 8th will mark the beginning of the second Senate trial to impeach former President Donald Trump. The last trial ended with the Senate voting in favor of the then-sitting President. The political landscape changed over the previous year, though. Not only do more Democrats now hold senate seats, but some, if only a few, Republicans appear as though they could break party lines with their votes.
Another difference will be the person overseeing the trial. In the 2020 impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts presided over the proceedings. Recently Justice Roberts stated that he would not sit through the impeachment trial this February. Filling in the Justice's chair will be Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate's newly re-minted President pro tempore.
The 80-year-old Vermont Democrat is no stranger to a courtroom. Sen. Leahy was a prosecutor and trial lawyer before entering politics. However, some fear that the Senator will prove partisan and lack the impartiality of a Supreme Court Justice.
Why Justice Roberts Will Not Preside
The Chief Justice could have presided over another impeachment hearing, but reports indicate that he does not want to participate. Last year Justice Roberts had no choice as the U.S. Constitution states that the "Chief Justice shall preside" over presidential impeachment trials. If Democrats could have had their way and held the trial immediately and before January 20th, Justice Roberts would have been bound to endure a front seat at the Trump impeachment sequel. The Constitution does not compel his participation for the impeachment trial of a former president.
When it comes to why the Chief Justice does not want to take part in the hearing, the explanation is likely, at least in part, his desire to follow the traditionally apolitical role of the Supreme Court. The judicial branch typically does not delve into partisan battles- though the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg sometimes did so, often leading to criticism. Unlike RBG, Justice Roberts has a history of working to keep the court out of the messy political arena.
Why Does the Chief Justice Oversee Presidential Impeachment Trials?
The Constitution requires the Chief Justice to oversee presidential impeachment trials for a good reason. The Vice President is the Senate's presiding officer. Of course, having a Vice President oversee the trial of the President would be problematic. The Vice President can preside over other impeachment trials, such as those involving judges or senators.
Given that the impeachment trial involves a former president, technically, Vice President Kamala Harris presides over the proceedings. However, asking Vice President Harris to do so would create far more concern over partisanship than having a democratic senator oversee the trial.
Sen. Leahy's Role in the Trial
While some will inevitably decry the fact that a liberal politician presides over the trial, Sen. Leahy states that he will not have trouble remaining impartial in his role. The person who presides over the proceedings does not act as a judge or present evidence to the Senate. Instead, the pro tem will have to ensure that the Senate follows the proper procedures in carrying out the votes.
Sen. Leahy argued that he has always remained impartial when it comes to procedures.
Indeed, after around four decades in Congress, Sen. Leahy likely has the experience needed to oversee formal procedures. Given the political climate, there is a good chance that his role will still lead to some cries of foul play if the Senate convicts the former President.
Is the Senate Likely to Convict?
Even with a slim majority of Democrats in the Senate, there is little chance that there will be enough votes to convict former President Trump. There may be five or so Republicans voting to convict. These numbers exceed Sen. Mitt Romney's stand-alone Republican vote in favor of convicting then-President Trump in the first trial. However, they will still fall short of the two-thirds majority needed. In total, seventeen Republicans plus all Democrats would have to vote to convict.
Senator Rand Paul moved to stop the impeachment trial, claiming that convicting a former president is unconstitutional. All but five Republican senators voted with Sen. Paul. The outcome of that vote can likely serve as a weather-vane for the upcoming trial. Earlier indications that more Republicans might turn on the former President now seem to have faded. Many of them may sense that former President Trump still has a firm grip on the party and that severing ties with him could come back to hurt their future political prospects.
The second impeachment trial will probably end without consequences for the former commander in chief. And just like the first trial, it is likely that the subject of this second trial will walk away virtually unscathed by the process, with his supporters believing that the impeachment was nothing but a vicious and unfair attack.
