Quick thread re: Removal Trial in the Senate. As we know, the Chief Justice presides over this trial. I have attempted to ascertain how this role differs from the way any other Federal Judge would preside over a trial. I have not found any info on the subject. Most likely 1/
because there hasn’t been many removal trials, especially one this contentious. Andrew Johnson’s trial comes to mind. Now the role of a Federal Judge is to make legal rulings, control the litigants, manage the pace of trials, offers of proof, and punish prejudicial or unruly 2/
behavior. They can require parties to comply with orders of the Court, preclude prejudicial or misleading information from entering the record. They can dismiss jurors in various instances. They can also direct verdicts in favor of a party and even reverse a jury verdict 3/
if the verdict is obviously against the weight of the evidence or completely erroneous. Republicans may not be able to grandstand and act like lunatics during this trial. They may be compelled by the Court - CJ Roberts - to allow witnesses to testify and evidence entered 4/
into evidence. Theoretically, if they violate decorum or obstruct proceedings, they could be sanctioned with a variety of penalties as well as directed to leave. We’re in uncharted territory here and this is just a hypothetical. However CJ Roberts presiding might be one of 5/
the issues Republicans are freaking out about. What I can say definitively is that CJ Roberts role her isn’t ministerial. X
