Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Capitol Hill Wednesday night time.Credit score...Erin Schaff/The New York InstancesIf a vote on listening to w
If a vote on listening to witnesses ends in a tie, it might fall to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to determine what occurs subsequent.
When a vote on any movement ends in a tie, the movement fails. So one end result in that situation is that Chief Justice Roberts does nothing, and that’s the top of the matter.
Nevertheless, a precedent from the primary presidential impeachment trial — the unsuccessful effort to take away Andrew Johnson in 1868 — would additionally appear to provide Chief Justice Roberts the choice of breaking the tie.
The Senate’s basic guidelines for impeachment trials are silent about what occurs in a tie and whether or not the chief justice might solid tiebreaking votes on procedural motions, and the present model of them — final revised in 1986 — nonetheless doesn’t tackle that query. A decision that the Senate accredited this month laying out particular procedures for the Trump trial can also be silent on ties.
However Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who presided over the Johnson trial, twice solid tiebreaking votes on procedural motions, which subsequently each handed. (On a 3rd tie, Mr. Chase abstained, in order that movement failed.)
To make certain, each of the procedural motions that Chief Justice Chase voted on had been far much less momentous than calling Mr. Bolton as a witness could be: They concerned whether or not the Senate ought to take a brief break and adjourn for the day.
Some senators in 1868 believed that Chief Justice Chase lacked that energy underneath the Structure and moved to declare his intervention null. However the Senate voted down the objection, making a precedent that chief justices do have tiebreaking energy in impeachment trials, simply as vice presidents have tiebreaking energy in votes on laws and nominations.
In the one different presidential impeachment trial — in opposition to Invoice Clinton in 1999 — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist solid no tiebreaking votes; the problem by no means got here up.
John Warner, a Republican elder statesman who served for 30 years within the Senate, referred to as on his fellow Republicans on Thursday night time to deliver “related witnesses and paperwork” into President Trump’s impeachment trial.
“As a lifelong Republican and retired member of the U.S. Senate, who as soon as served as a juror in a presidential impeachment trial, I’m conscious of the tough obligations these presently serving now shoulder,” Mr. Warner, 92, wrote in an announcement.
“I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the principles of proof and comply with our nation’s norms, precedents and establishments to uphold the Structure and the rule of regulation by welcoming related witnesses and paperwork as a part of this impeachment trial,” he added.
Mr. Warner, a five-term senator from Virginia and considered one of Congress’s most influential voices on the battle in Iraq, declined to hunt re-election in 2008, and was succeeded by Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat who’s of no relation.
A centrist who usually labored throughout social gathering traces, the elder Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Companies Committee, served as secretary of the Navy and was lengthy often known as one of many Senate’s “previous bulls” — the guardians of its establishments.
His assertion, distributed by Mark Warner’s Senate workplace, harked again to a different period within the Capitol.
“Not way back, senators of each main events at all times labored to accommodate fellow colleagues with differing factors of view to reach at outcomes that will finest serve the nation’s pursuits,” he wrote. “If witnesses are suppressed on this trial and a majority of Individuals are left believing the trial was a sham, I can solely think about the lasting injury finished to the Senate, and to our fragile nationwide consensus.”
It began when Pat A. Cipollone, the White Home counsel, stated, “With the best respect, if the Senate can simply determine there’s no government privilege, guess what? You’re destroying government privilege.”
Then Consultant Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead Democratic Home supervisor, snapped again: “It might be completely different within the courtroom than it’s on this chamber and within the Home, however when anyone begins a sentence with the phrase, ‘I’ve the best respect for,’ you must look out for what follows.”
Enter Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who requested the following query: “I despatched a query to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Capito and Scott of South Carolina — with all due respect.”
There was laughter within the chamber.
In his subsequent response, Mr. Cipollone struck again. “I gained’t reply to the advert hominem assaults that maintain coming,” he stated. “I’ll simply say, for the report: You’re proper, I haven’t been elected to…