Who Presides?

For John, BLUF:  The US Senate can't seem to entice the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over their trial of Donal J Trump, Citizen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

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

Here is the sub-headline:

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

From The Althouse Blog, by Professor Ann Althouse, 25 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

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?

Professor Althouse is not having any of the wishy-washy thinking about the Impeachment Trial, and ends:

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.

I agree with the Professor.  This has high potential for going sideways on the Democratic Party Leadership.

At least is is not a Star Chamber.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff