Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.  |
Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ent-tiebreaker
Quote:
Schumer began by asking Roberts if he was aware that Chief Justice Samuel Chase cast tie-breaking votes during President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in the 1860s.
"I have a parliamentary inquiry," Schumer said. "Is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as presiding officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?"
Roberts said he was aware of Chase's actions but explained that the issues he sought to resolve were minor. He also said he did not believe Chase's votes were enough to establish a firm precedent for him to act on.
“The one [vote] concerned a motion to adjourn. The other [vote] concerned a motion to close deliberations," Roberts replied. "I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago, as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties." ... "If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion -- the normal rule is that the motion fails," he added.
"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”
|
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk