January 22, 2020

Chief Justice Roberts admonishes the House Managers and the President's counsel to "remember where they are" and "avoid speaking in a manner and avoid using language that is not conducive to civil discourse."



"I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House Managers and the President's counsel, in equal terms, to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and avoid using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. In the 1905 Swain trial, a Senator objected when one of the managers used the word 'pettifogging,' and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."

I didn't watch much of yesterday's theatrics, but I did think the style of speech was inappropriate for a legal presentation. It was more like actors in a courtroom drama. Lawyers arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court do not take anything like that tone. I only heard a small bit of argument from House Managers, but it was obvious to me that they were speaking through the cameras at the American people and trying to gain political ground. I was able to vocalize disgust and walk away, but the Chief Justice is required to sit there and listen, and all the Senators are required to sit there and listen, and the form of speech really disrespects them.

There's so much talk about solemnity and seriousness, but these characters are speaking like they're in a Hollywood melodrama. Something really wrong is going on here....



IN THE COMMENTS: Darrell says: "Sure. Criticize both sides. That makes you look impartial. That's what losers do." But if you look at the Washington Post's story on the Roberts admonishment, you'll see the highest-rated comments there accuse Roberts of bias against the Democrats:

Highest-rated:
In trying to be fair Justice Roberts is accepting the lying of the executive branch as equal. Shame on him. The world is watching.....
Second-highest rated:
Too bad Chief Justice Roberts did not see a need to admonish McConnell when the Senate refused to hold hearings or an up or down vote on Merrick Garland's nomination, leaving a Supreme Court seat open for a year. And too bad Roberts was silent again when McConnell orchestrated a change in the rules governing confirmation for the Supreme Court to allow a Justice to be seated based on a simple majority vote. Insults on the floor of the Senate, even during an impeachment trial doesn't compare to the damage McConnell has done to the Court, to Congress, the Constitution and the Country through his actions.

213 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213
Milwaukie guy said...

Maybe wrong thread. Whatevs. Gotta get back to my shovel during this rain break.

LA_Bob said...

World's greatest deliberative body?

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

Who is Roberts kidding?

Amadeus 48 said...

I think that WGDB reference by Roberts was a sly joke about the inflated egos on display. But I am boycotting this, so I didn't even watch the clip. I am using my imagination.

tim in vermont said...

Film of Chuck on this like a dog on a bone!

and were allowed to participate in the examination of witnesses.

Just like onlookers are allowed to “participate” in a royal wedding, as window dressing. They were not allowed witnesses and not allowed to ask questions pertinent to the defense of Trump. They were only allowed to focus on the lines of questioning and witnesses that Schiff allowed. But true enough, they did eviscerate the Sondman testimony Chuck has been pushing even so, but I think Schiff really got caught off guard there.

Narayanan said...

the rules say the Senators' questions must be submitted in writing and will be read by the Chief Justice.
____&&&&&++++
So we'll see exhibit of penmanship and spelling grammar mastery.

Any Senators from medical school?

Unknown said...

Hello viewers around the Globe, I was despondent because i had a very small penis, about 2.5 inches soft and 4 inches hard not nice enough to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors for me, but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the INTERNET about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to contact him on his email: Drolusolutinthome@gmail.com) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 3 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my sex and i have got a large penis. Am so happy, thanks to Dr OLU I also learn that Dr OLU also help with Breast Enlargement Hips and Bums Enlargement etc.. If you are in any situation with a little Penis, weak ejaculation, small breast_hips_bums do get to Dr OLU now for help on his email (Drolusolutionhome@gmail.com) or add him on whatsapp line +2348140654426 

Douglas B. Levene said...

Apparently a lot of Democrats have decided that Chief Justice Roberts's job is to be the Bob Mueller that Bob Mueller wasn't. I'm not sure I understand this need for saviors who are supposed to step outside of their institutional roles and perform heroic acts.

LA_Bob said...

Amadeus 48 said, "I think that WGDB reference by Roberts was a sly joke about the inflated egos on display."

I don't know about "sly joke" (I would say, "pointed remark'), but I otherwise agree with your comment.

You don't miss anything not watching the clip. Althouse quoted it almost verbatim.

From my first link above (https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm):

'Vice President Thomas Jefferson included in his now-classic Manual of Parliamentary Practice a telling passage that reads as if it had been taken from a schoolroom wall. "No one is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, speaking or whispering to another; nor to stand up or interrupt him; nor to pass between the Speaker and the speaking member; nor to go across the [Senate chamber], or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the [clerk's] table, or write there."'

Yep, inflated egos since the very beginning. Of course, Jefferson's advice is largely ignored today, since the speaking member is addressing the Record (and his or her constituents and the news media) rather than the other members.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Chuck and all other leftists-

Point to the document that says the Bidens have automatic immunity.
Point to the document that says "political rivals" have automatic immunity.
Point to the document that says "Democrats are above the law, above scrutiny, above asking questions about, and above investigation"... etc.

Where in the constitution does it say that Biden is above the law, above questions, above anything?

Milwaukie guy said...

I would settle for seeing the "debunking" of the charges against Joe and Hunter. Is there some reference document I should know about?

Chuck said...

Aunty Trump said...
Film of Chuck on this like a dog on a bone!

"and were allowed to participate in the examination of witnesses."

Just like onlookers are allowed to “participate” in a royal wedding, as window dressing. They were not allowed witnesses and not allowed to ask questions pertinent to the defense of Trump. They were only allowed to focus on the lines of questioning and witnesses that Schiff allowed. But true enough, they did eviscerate the Sondman testimony Chuck has been pushing even so, but I think Schiff really got caught off guard there.


Don't play games with these readers. I won't play games with you.

Cippolone is stuck with what he said. No fine-point arguments about what real "participation" meant. No; I want to hammer this because it is precisely what you do not want to hear. Cipplone chose how to word his claim and what he said wass that, "Not even (House Intelligence Chairman Adam) Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" during the House impeachment investigation.

"Not allowed into the SCIF." Fuck you, Cipplone. And fuck you, Aunty Trump. Yes, Republicans were allowed into the SCIF. They were allowed into the SCIF, and were allowed to ask witnesses questions. We have the fucking transcripts from most of the witnesses! Who the fuck has the nerve, the stupidity to claim that Republicans "were not allowed into the SCIF" when there are transcripts showing that to be false?

So that's really the end of the argument that I took up. I might like it to end there, because that ending is so bad for you and Cippolone. But as for those transcripts, Philip Bump of the Washington Post reviewed them and checked on Republican participation in what was transcribed.

"About 44% of the transcript is made up of questions or answers from Democratic members or staff," Bump wrote. "About 41% is from the Republicans. The remaining 15% was discussion and objections." LINK.

So it really does get worse for you, Aunty Trump, and your whining about how the Republicans didn't get a chance and that Cippolone's howler is somehow defensible. No; it isn't defensible. There is nothing defensible about it. Republicans were in the SCIF with their Democratic Party colleagues. And they were asking questions in roughly equal number as the Democrats.

But I'm glad that you came along to weigh in on this so that I could get this comment in on top of it.

Doug said...

I always thought it was a mistake to impeach Clinton over Monica.

Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury in the matter of Paula Jones.

tim in vermont said...

Statistics lie Chuck. If they were not allowed to call witnesses, if Schiff instructed witnesses to not answer certain questions they asked, and lines of questioning, such as any that might puncture the fiction that consideration of the national. interest was “completely absent,” then they were not allowed to participate beyond being window dressing. If I could somehow enforce a rule that said that you were only allowed to comment on certain issues, and certain types of comments from you were not allowed here, would you say that you were allowed participation, even if you still were allowed to make about half of the comments by rule?

You can’t be this stupid Chuck, I don’t believe it. Therefore I have to believe that you are being dishonest, but if you want that dishonest persiflage you are peddling to work, you are going to have to try selling it somewhere else.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213   Newer› Newest»