What is the practical effect of the Chief Justice ruling in the impeachment trial that Senators can no longer be called "jurors?" Clarendon, Virginia - 5/3/00

The ruling did not break new ground -- it clarified existing ground. A court of impeachment is not just a legal proceeding nor is it only a political trial -- it is a combination of both. To call Senators "jurors" limits the mind picture one gets to the role of that in a legal proceeding, looking only at facts and evidence. Senators in an impeachment trial play the role of juror but they also play the role of judge -- voting on procedural motions and fairness questions as they arise. Moreover, they never shed the role of Senators -- considering the state of the nation. So Senators in an impeachment trial are both judge and jury while remaining Senators. Therefore "triers", though an awkward title, reflects better the Senators' full role in an impeachment trial than does the title "juror."

This affirmation that Senators may go beyond a conventional juror's look at facts and evidence in deciding guilt is one reason you heard House managers argue that the Senate should consider both breaking the law and damaging societal institutions -- like the military -- and societal standards -- like respect for the office of President -- when making their judgment. And that is also why you will hear the President's defenders argue that even if laws were broken, the trauma on society of removing a popular President from office must also be factored into the Senate's decision.

Both sides are presenting arguments that go beyond the facts and evidence of the case.