Roberts Clarifies Role of Chief Justice
The Senate agreed by unanimous consent last month to set aside its rules and wrap up President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Before the final vote, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, reached an agreement on a process whereby McConnell would propose another package of supplemental rules (S. Res. 488) to govern the trial’s closing days. Among its provisions, the resolution scheduled the parties’ final arguments and stipulated when the Senate would vote on the articles of impeachment.
McConnell and Schumer also agreed to reverse the Senate’s prior decision to prohibit senators from forcing votes to subpoena witnesses and documents. Under their agreement, Schumer, or his designee, would be allowed to offer a limited number of amendments to S. Res. 488 that would, in effect, force votes on witnesses and documents. The agreement also specified that Chief Justice John Roberts, as the Senate’s Presiding Officer, would recognize McConnell to offer a motion to table each amendment immediately after Schumer, or his designee offered it.
Roberts Clarifies Chief Justice’s Role
Prior to offering his amendments, Schumer propounded a parliamentary inquiry. That is, he asked the Chief Justice a question about the Senate’s rules and practices.
“SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The Democratic leader will state the inquiry.
SCHUMER: Is the Chief Justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as Presiding Officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I am, Mr. Leader. The one concerned a motion to adjourn. The other concerned a motion to close deliberations. I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties. If the Members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”
As Roberts noted in his response to Schumer’s parliamentary inquiry, the Senate’s rules and precedents permit the Chief Justice to cast tie-breaking votes when presiding in presidential impeachment trials. In 1868, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase cast two tie-breaking votes while presiding in President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial. (The Chief Justice declined to vote on a third occasion later in the trial.) At the time, senators approved, albeit implicitly, the actions of the Chief Justice when they refrained from reversing them on appeal.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Senators address parliamentary inquiries to the Senate’s Presiding Officer (in this case, the Chief Justice). They are questions regarding the rules and practices of the Senate. While the Presiding Officer usually answers parliamentary inquiries, he or she is not required to do so. Senators cannot appeal the Presiding Officer’s response to a parliamentary inquiry because it does not constitute a formal ruling. While senators usually treat the Presiding Officer’s response to a parliamentary inquiry as non-binding, such responses may gain precedential value over time to the extent that they provide future senators with insight into past parliamentary practice. However, it is important to note that senators do not consider precedents based on parliamentary inquiries to be as binding on the Senate as those established pursuant to a definitive action such as a ruling of the Presiding Officer or a vote of the full Senate to reverse a ruling. Precedents associated with parliamentary inquiries are designated by the word See in Riddick’s Senate Procedure.