Talk:Impeachment in the United States
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Impeachment in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | The contents of the Articles of impeachment page were merged into Impeachment in the United States on 19 January 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Impeachment of president: what if the Chief Justice abstains/is unavailable?
editIf the chief justice refuses to carry out a task that the justice ordinarily would (e.g. recusal), is in a condition that renders the justice unable to act, or is outright vacant, the understanding is that the most senior associate justice would act in that role.
Are there sources that talk about this in the context of impeachment trial of a president? Analogous to how other impeachments are presided over by either the vice president or the president pro tempore of the Senate. If the vice president won't be chairing over the trial for whatever reason, the president pro tempore fills in the chair role as the substitute.
I bring this up in the context of Trump's second impeachment, of which the trial occurred after he left office. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to participate in this one, and the Senate proceeded with then-president pro tempore Patrick Leahy (with the vice president abstaining as well, just like with the rest of the White House administration deciding to stay out of the matter). Some in the Senate wanted the constitutional clause of the chief justice's role to apply a former president, but the Senate decided that it didn't apply. But some news reporting at the time talked about this as if because the chief justice was absent the role got passed over to the preside pro tempore, which... doesn't sound right? As stated above, if the chief justice is unavailable, it should be the senior associate justice that steps in instead. 2600:1012:A023:670C:1F0:BD8F:F26F:EAAB (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)