The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Roberts will tap his inner umpire in impeachment
All eyes will be on chief justice as he presides over trial of Trump.
WASHINGTON — America’s last prolonged look at Chief Justice John Roberts came 14 years ago, when he told senators during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing that judges should be like baseball umpires, impartially calling balls and strikes. Roberts will strive to be like that umpire when he presides over President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. He’ll Robertshave the chance to demonstrate by example what he has preached relentlessly in recent years: Judges are not politicians.
“He’s going to look the part, he’s going to play the part and he’s the last person who wants the part,” said Carter Phillips, who has argued 88 Supreme Court cases, 43 of them in front of Roberts.
How he’s presided over the Supreme Court
Republican appointees hold a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Roberts has a solidly conservative voting record on the court, with a couple of notable exceptions that include sustaining President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Still, Roberts is closest to the court’s ideological center, and in the best position to decide how far the court will move, right or left, in any divisive case — and divisive cases are on the way.
Before the end of June, the justices are expected to decide cases involving guns, abortion, subpoenas for Trump financial records, workplace protections for LGBT people and the fate of an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation. It’s possible the court will be asked to hear yet another case on the health care law before the term ends.
How he’ll likely preside in the Senate
In the Senate, though, the chief justice’s powers are limited because any ruling he makes can be overridden by a majority vote.
He is not likely to put himself in the position of inviting reversal, said Paul M.Collins Jr., a political scientist and director of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
“Any controversial rulings in support of either party will threaten the viewpoint that the court should be above politics. Democrats would perceive any ruling for Republicans as partisan, and if he ruled against the president, Republicans would allege he is holding a grudge,” Collins said. The Senate’s impeachment rules allow Roberts to put questions to a Senate vote, without first ruling himself.
The mechanics of the trial are not yet clear, though he can look to his predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for precedence.
Roberts — as was the case with Rehnquist — has virtually no experience running a trial, as opposed to the appellate proceedings at the Supreme Court. “I would be shocked if he suddenly becomes a very rigid jurist with respect to technical evidentiary rules,” Phillips said.
During the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Rehnquist had his top aide at the court, James Duff, and at least one law clerk on hand. He regularly consulted with the Senate parliamentarian before announcing rulings.
Two years after the trial, Rehnquist borrowed a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta in describing his role in that Senate trial: “I did nothing in particular and I did it very well.”