I think he’s best described as caring about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, and his own legacy as Chief Justice. So he will not go along with things that would put him in history books alongside the court that made the Dred Scott decision for example. In this case, I think he’s rationalized it as the impeachment being really the Congress’ thing, and if the Senate Republicans turn the whole thing into a disgraceful farce, it’s on them and not on him and SCOTUS.
5 Likes
It’s always a good look when your argument basically boils down to “of course he did it, but it’s not a problem, and everyone on my side of the aisle covering for him means nobody can do shit about it anyway”.
5 Likes
And he’s nodding slightly after reading the question. (A slight camera bump as well. Go full screen.)
1 Like
Yes, thanks, I just went full screen and see that now, along with a sort of smirk of affirmation. Target-strike achieved.
Not that it matters much, since he’s clearly not going to rise up onto his hind legs. At least he might sleep a little less well.
4 Likes
There are no moderates.
5 Likes
There are no republicans, only trump cultists.
10 Likes
That is the goddam truth.
5 Likes
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html
Cilizza’s analysis is just off the mark, as usual.
The “why” behind Rubio’s statement is much easier to discern than the statement itself.
Rubio ran for president in 2016. He would like to do so again – maybe as soon as 2024. To do so successfully, Rubio will likely need to walk a very fine line between the Trump faction of the party and the bloc, currently (mostly) in hiding, who believe in a very different version of what the Republican Party can and should be.
He’s right that Rubio is trying to position himself as palatable in the event that there is another presidential election in the US in his lifetime. But, as usual, Cilizza also fails to see his nose before his face. There are two likely outcomes from a lack of removal of Trump by the Senate: 1. the US falls into a fascist dictatorship, in which case Rubio is just as fucked, if not more so, than most Democrats, or 2. Democrats regain power and Rubio is just as fucked as every other GOP enabler of Trump’s attempt at dictatorship.
The center will not hold.
5 Likes
There’s a statue dealing with protection of whistleblowers. I haven’t read it, but I’m guessing outing a whistleblower during an impeachment trial probably violates some section of that statute or could be reasonably interpreted as violating the statute (retaliation against the whistleblower most likely.)
I don’t think Senator Warren’s question would violate any statute.
4 Likes
Yes, I’m aware… hence my comment about integrity…
3 Likes
It’s literally a dark day in DC today.
4 Likes
The former president of Estonia:
I hope this haunts every single one of them beyond the grave.
16 Likes
8 Likes
Quiet part? What quiet part?
(Also the economy is pretty damn awful for anyone who isn’t already a millionaire so fuck you twice, Lamar.)
11 Likes
Buried in this comment is the implication that the the right way to deal with a President who abuses the power of his office is to vote in someone else in the next election.
Which of course totally ignores the fact this President was abusing his power to influence that election.
11 Likes
Rubio and Murkowski’s comments boil down to “there’s no point continuing the hearings if it’s just going to be strictly partisan.”
Hey guys, know what would make it bipartisan? If one or more of you, as Republicans of conscience, voted to allow witnesses and then made a decision based on the actual evidence.
13 Likes
To pull-quote the specific update in question here:
Chief Justice John Roberts said it would be “inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government” to break a 50-50 tie. If Senators tie on any votes, the motion will fail, Roberts said.
Roberts was responding to a question from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who pointed out that the Supreme Court Justice presiding over the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson broke two ties.
“I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties,” Roberts responded.
So on top of everything else, John’s gone ahead and decided to flush his own ability to get involved down the toilet as well. So much for upholding the reputation of the Supreme Court.
If we don’t win in November, this experiment really will be over.
9 Likes
Roberts, to the likes me who is un-educated in the ways of law, is saying that there is precedent and then there real precedent.
3 Likes
And real precedent is, conveniently, always the thing that aligns with his own views on how things ought to be.
5 Likes
Seems to me that if Roberts wanted to find a Constitutionally-justified way of breaking a tie in the Senate without having to take sides himself he’d just leave the tie-breaking vote to the Vice President, whose sole Constitutional duty is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
Obviously that would have the same result as just giving the Republicans another vote—unless Pence decided to get ambitious, which would be REALLY interesting.
7 Likes
