The Chief presides over the trial in the Senate alone when the impeached official is the president. The language is plain on that point, and what McConnell did or didn't do concerning recess has zero to do with anything.
The role is largely ceremonial, anyway. Roberts wouldn't have made any significant rulings in this impeachment trial than he did in the first (which was zero rulings, remember?) Leahy is perfectly capable of doing the same -- and that is???nothing.
The emoluments cases sought injunctive relief. If Trump is no longer president, he can't be enjoined from future conduct that violates the emoluments clause. That's why the ruling was correct. And, there's absolutely nothing improper about a court holding a case open on the prospect that a ruling may become unnecessary, just as this one was. The mootness doctrine is not new, it's important, and it is not some smoke screen excuse proffered by the Court.
I don't mean any offense when I say this, but you make lots of statements about the law, the constitution, and the Supreme Court that are simply misguided because you don't have much depth to your understanding of any of the three. That's a common short-coming, nothing to be ashamed of. The issues are extraordinarily complex, difficult to understand, and almost impossible for most non-lawyers to unravel.
I'd suggest you find a legal scholar on Twitter or elsewhere to follow, someone who can point out where the Court is correct and where it is out of bounds. There's far less mischief in it all that you surmise on a regular basis. |
