From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.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.
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an errorIf 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)[reply]
The article mentions requirement of a simple majority in the House several times, but does not currently, as far as I can find, quote the Constitutional clause(s) for this. Wcmead3 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4