"If the Chief Justice is required, then what Leahy is about to do is not a duty. Taking on a role that is not yours under the Constitution is an abuse of power."

I wrote, in my post yesterday, "Did Chief Justice John Roberts decline to preside over the Senate trial of the Trump impeachment?" 

In the comments, Meade wrote: "Will Leahy be costumed in his horned animal skin shaman outfit?" 

I said, "Can someone do a photoshop of this? I'd like to put it on the front page." 

Asked. Received:

I'll credit the Photoshopper by name if he emails to say he wants to be named.

ADDED: We really ought to learn Photoshop here at Meadhouse. I can't do it at all, and Meade's effort was at a level that I call "South Park" (and find rather charming, especially coming from Meade):

I like that this image shows the Shaman/Leahy on the Senate dais, because that is where the Chief Justice belongs, if this is an impeachment trial that requires the Chief Justice.

ADDED: Laslo Spatula sends this:

And I do see that Senator Leahy was taken to the hospital after today's session. I wish him well. These jokes are just a way of saying if the Chief Justice should be presiding over this trial, then Leahy, like the QAnon Shaman, does not belong in that seat.

Did Chief Justice John Roberts decline to preside over the Senate trial of the Trump impeachment?

I'm trying to understand "John Roberts ducks the spotlight by skipping the second Trump impeachment trial" by Joan Biskupic (CNN). 

Ducks by skipping?!! That's a daffy way to put it. I think it means John Roberts arrived at the view that there was no occasion for the Chief Justice to preside, and therefore he has a duty to refrain from participating. That's not ducking and it's not skipping. When he presides, it's because he must, and when he refrains, it's because he must. It's based on an interpretation of law. 

But I can't tell, reading this article, if he was asked to preside and communicated a refusal, or if Senate Democrats decided that the Constitution, Article I, Section 3, does not provide for a role for the Chief Justice. 

The article says "Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and the president pro tempore of the chamber, will preside for Trump's second impeachment trial." So, it seems a decision has been made, but did Roberts participate? Did the Senate Democrats want him, or are they, on their own, taking the opportunity to exclude him?

Biskupic writes that the constitutional text is, "When the President of the United States is impeached, the Chief Justice shall preside," which obscures the argument Roberts-excluders must make. The actual text is "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." The argument must be that Trump is no longer the President of the United States, therefore there's no role for the Chief Justice. That also provides a foundation for an argument that there is now no occasion for a trial of impeachment — impeachment is a procedure for removing the President — and it is an abuse of power for the Senate to try the former President, deprived of the safeguard of the Chief Justice as a neutral arbiter. 

It would be interesting to know what Roberts thinks about these things, but I can't even tell if Roberts was involved in the decision to leave it to Leahy. Biskupic writes:

Since the US House of Representatives impeached Trump on January 13, Roberts has declined multiple requests for comment on his responsibility, if any, for a trial after Trump left office on January 20.

Has he declined to communicate with the Senators? 

Leahy had earlier said that "the first choice" for presiding officer would be the chief justice...

So that must mean that Leahy did not interpret Article I, Section 3 to exclude the Chief Justice, and I would argue that must mean that there cannot be a trial. If the Chief Justice is permitted, then he is required. 

... and [Leahy] would not reveal on Monday when it became clear that the duty would fall to him...

If the Chief Justice is required, then what Leahy is about to do is not a duty. Taking on a role that is not yours under the Constitution is an abuse of power. 

... telling reporters only that he was "up to the responsibility."

Whether he's up to it or not is irrelevant, but it's not a "responsibility" unless the Constitution assigns him that role. If he sought Roberts's participation, then he thought it was Roberts's role. You can't have it both ways! 

Roberts had no comment on Monday on Leahy's announcement of his role or dealings with senators....

That's not surprising, but it leaves us to puzzle out the meaning. I wonder what the anti-Trump Senators really want? It seems so unfair to have Leahy presiding, and it's going to look hyper-partisan to people, especially to the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump. The easy out is to say the impeachment is moot, because Trump is out of office. I understand why Trump opponents want to proceed against him anyway, but I don't think it will go very well for them. Trump is out of office. Leave him alone.

UPDATE: The Biskupic article now has a correction of the error I wrote about. The disclosure of the correction says:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referenced the Constitution's terms about the Senate trial. The passage reads, "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."