The On-Crack Ass Clown for January, 2020

January is one of those months which offers five, rather than four Fridays, the distribution of which means that we have three opportunities, rather than two, to shine the Spotlight of Shame on deserving Ass Clowns. And so it is that we turn our attention to

The On-Crack Ass Clown for January, 2020

The monumental degree of ass clownery on exhibit as a result of the impeachment trial of Der Furor has made it extraordinarily difficult to narrow down the candidate field. I wrote the first draft of this period's award earlier this week, but breaking events in the course of the Senate blather masquerading as a trial caused me to reconsider. I saw no reason to not present the award as I'd originally intended, but saw the need to cast the net wider ... thus, I have decided to present a dual award.

And the award is presented to

Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Roberts

and

Presidential Attorney
Alan Dershowitz

Chief Justice Roberts this month found himself in the unenviable, yet Constitutionally-mandated position of being the presiding judge at Der Furor's impeachment trial in the Senate. The Constitution does not specify how he is to exercise this role - only that he needs to perform it. The Constitution also gives the Senate the responsibility of trying impeachments done by the House of Representatives, but does not specify how it is to perform this duty. As a result, the Senate writes its own rules on how to conduct impeachment trials ... rules which also specify the duties of the Chief Justice as the presiding judge. These duties are discussed in more detail in this article from the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog ... which makes the point that the Chief Justice's role "... is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate."

As the presiding officer, the Chief Justice thus has a role primarily as a figurehead. Indeed, as the SCOTUS Blog article explains,

"What little precedent we have in such cases [presidential impeachments] suggests that chief justices keep their heads down and, so far as possible, defer assiduously to the will of the Senate majority."

His position as a Constitutionally-mandated potted plant notwithstanding, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most senior judicial official in the country - the one person we might expect to remain above the partisan fray and take a fair and impartial approach to the management of an historic and critically important impeachment trial. We would expect that in vain, though.

On the first day of the trial, the Chief Justice admonished both sides to remember where they were and to conduct themselves in a civil and respectful fashion ...

That was a good start. But for the rest of the trial (at least, up to the time of this writing) he has remained utterly silent other than to recite his administrative lines, failing to call out the presentation of obvious, documented lies, irrelevant commentary, and obvious gaslighting and water-muddying conducted by Der Furor's defense team. He even remained silent in the face of the breathtakingly terrifying assertion by his co-winner, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, that

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest ... And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

In other words, anything a sitting president does which he or she believes will help his reelection is perfectly okay. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court let that incredible assertion go unchallenged.

The impeachment of a president is one of the most serious acts Congress can undertake, and should never be undertaken for frivolous or purely partisan reasons. Der Furor's defenders argue that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable act. They maintain that impeachment requires the breaking of a specific law in the US criminal code ... which, of course, did not exist when the Constitution was written in 1789. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court remained silent.

The presiding judge does not set the standards and guidelines for an impeachment trial - he or she is but a figurehead whose opinions and guidance can be overridden by Senate vote. But the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court speaks (or should be expected to speak) with an authority and gravitas possessed by no other official in government. Even if a partisan vote of the Senate should refuse to accept the Chief Justice's comments or guidance, the simple fact that those comments and guidance have been voiced is important.

But Chief Justice Roberts has not commented on anything, even Mr Dershowitz's bald and frightening assertion of unlimited presidential authority.

If we are to have a figurehead, it should at least be a figurehead more decorative and meaningful than a judge in simple black robes -

At least the lantern would symbolize the search for a safe path through the fog in search of truth and justice ... a path sure to avoid collision with Alan Dershowitz.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Readers, Chief Justice John Roberts and Professor Alan Dershowitz are the joint winners of our On-Crack Ass Clown for January, 2020.

Have a good day and come back tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday. More thoughts then.

Bilbo