>>7810488

Sitting senators are not required to vote. To attend, yes, and to abide by usual restrictions placed on jurors.

However, there are so many conflicts of interest amidst the various members of the senate – on both sides of the aisle. Is there a convention, or explicit rule, that might push aside this or that Senator due to such conflicts of interest – or due to not attending or not abiding by usual restrictions on jurors?

All kinds of procedural questions would arise immediately.

As discussed in last bread, Chief Justice Roberts is conflicted with his own role as part of the FISA Court system. His recusing could be one of the early procedural clarifications sought by … well, might not a Senator ask the question?

If Roberts were to resign – and no longer remain as Chief – then POTUS could nominate one of the sitting Associate Justices as replacement. How about RBG?

Kek. All kinds of ploys could be played before the potential trial got off the ground.

Yuge can of worms, Anons.

>>7810600

Might a senator who is running for re-election request, and be permitted, to not attend? If a senator were to not attend, at what point might there be some type of sanction or disciplinary action and by whom – the presiding Judge or some committee of senators or the entire body of the Senate?

Arcane procedures indeed.

>>7810586

I think a presiding judge can recuse. Without explanation, too.

The FISA topic need not be brought up, explicitly, by Roberts. Likewise if he were to step aside. There are fig leafs available to him.

But this is brinkmanship within a circus.

Roberts resigns immediately so as to avoid recusal? An Associate is nominated and confirmed so as to supply the potential trial with a presiding judge?

Imagine a confirmation process in the midst of all this talk of impeaching the President.

Say Roberts resigned. Okay, then that leaves the Court one justice short to break ties and so on. Also, it leaves a potential trial without a presiding judge. That means to go forward the Dems and the Repubs would hafta deal on selection of a replacement Chief Justice – whether that be a new appointment or an Associate promoted to top job.

>>7810660

TY Anon. Moar questions than answers.

>>7810637

The thing is, I think that Thomas would not be confirmed by Senate. He is not promoted by seniority, altho a new convention could be established by his stepping forward with some sort of support from fellow Justices, Senate, and the Executive – but that is leaning toward amendment of the Constitution without an actual amendment.

The Constitution requires a Chief Justice serving as the presiding judge. So that means a replacement must be nominated and confirmed – as Chief Justice, even if that means a current Associate Justice is elevated. Such an elevation would leave a vacancy on the Court for a subsequent nomination/confirmation.

All of this is going to take time and Dems don't have time on their side. They think they do, but it has already worked against them, time.

>>7810621

Could prop-up RBG – would not serve long as Chief Justice but would get easy confirmation from Dem Senators.

Shuffling the deck by placing a Dem appointee in the Chief spot might have its advantages for POTUS if that replacement served briefly.

>>7810695

The Constitution presumes a court system and thus conventions such as those which govern recusal. That there may not be explicit terms and conditions for recusal in a Senate trial does not mean that recusal would be unconstitutional. The Judiciary's own regulations and conventions for recusal would likely apply without contest.

But this is new ground with features much like a minefield for all involved – all participants – and for the Republic itself.

>>7810699

The possibilities …

Wouldn't it really undo the DEMS, especially those chanting abuse of power, for POTUS to nominate an Associate Justice who had been appointed by a DEM president? Kek. RBG would be very popular choice – quicly becoming a lame duck by Memorial Day. Brutal yet velvet gloved move.

Agh. The movie has many possible plot twists. Some more fanciful than others. Kek.

>>7810735

Yeh, see what you mean.

Of course one need not be a lawyer to practice it, to some extent, but it helps to practice, practice, practice especially before the stakes are so high that performance matters moar than even study.

>>7810809

Excellent. Chief Justice Roberts could recuse – or another act in his place – until his "disability" is removed or another is appointed/confirmed in his place after his resignation.

That would be neat and clean. Roberts removing himself. Thomas stepping up. This would be a first in so many different ways. And quite the "redemption" for the much abused Associate Justice Thomas. His elevation would be highly contended by Dems. But their obstruction would only make matters yet worse for their desire to pursue impeachment.

This sort of consideration would already be played out in their tactical meetings. They have fewer and fewer "good" options along the way on this potential Senate trial. They were lured by their own desires and blinded by their own short-sightedness.

>>7810847

Yes, yet another layer to be considered. Weighty matters, indeed.

Something might lift RBG into consideration as a nominated/confirmed new Chief?

>>7810931

Like your thinking there, Anon. Very F'g mucho.

>>7810920

Respect. Big Respect, Anon.

>>7810952

Agreed, POTUS can not appoint the presiding judge per se.

If Roberts resigned, POTUS would nominate, and the Senate confirm, a new Chief (who would then preside). In the meantime, Thomas would be elevated as an acting Chief (and would preside should the trial proceed). And in that way, POTUS would appoint a replacement Chief would would preside over his own trial.

Of course, the DEMS would likely request, and the nominee would likley agree, to recuse precisely because nominated by the President who'd be under prosecution at the Senate trial. Full circle. And so Thomas it would be anyway, for the trial, should it proceed.

>>7810975

The Senate has voted on other nominations for Chief. This is so whether or not the nominee was elevated as an Associate Justice (i.e. Rehnquist) or nominated as a new Justice on the Court. Roberts was nominated first to succeed O'Conner, but his nomination was withdrawn so that he could be nominated as replacement for Rehnquist as new Chief Justice.

The president nominates. The Senate confirms. The president appoints.

>>7811068

Actually, I think the presiding judge can rule on a motion to dismiss. A senate vote not necessary. Perhaps it would be advisable to hold such a preliminary vote, I suppose. Not sure how that procedure would be initiated given it is a trial and Senators serve as jurors and not as movers of motions.

>>7811214

Question: Can a senate trial be interrupted by other Senate business on the floor of the Senate?

>>7811094

Yeh, but that was then and not now. The political considerations are unlike then. Not about lynching a man. As I said earlier, this would be a first on many levels as the much abused Thomas would be elevated to top spot as an acting Chief even if he might not be nominated/confirmed as replacement Chief.