Describes the Senate trial of Donald Trump’s first impeachment, with detailed analysis of the procedural maneuvers by Trump’s defenders and accusers, the role of the Chief Justice in the trial, and the arguments of the House Managers and Trump’s counsel.

This chapter examines the appointment of foreign judges through the lens of political contestation and potential judicial interference in Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini. It first interrogates why the appointment of foreign judges continued after domestic pipelines of judges had increased. Adopting a regime-based approach, the chapter first argues that the continued appointment of foreign judges beyond functional necessity is a form of strategic policy drift, because it does not require a new policy and it may be couched in positive or populist terms. Second, this chapter examines the timing of the pivot away from the appointment of foreign judges in Botswana and Eswatini. It shows that judicial leadership combined with local demand plays an important role in the timing of change, but that the localisation of appointments to apex courts of appeal, without reform of the appointment process itself, provides democratic window dressing for hegemonic regimes. The rhetoric around citizen-based localisation (Botswana) or racially-based Africanisation (Eswatini) has a populist flavour which may provide cover for varying degrees of autocratic behaviours.

This chapter examines the role and responsibilities of a chief justice. Using the judicial legitimacy values propounded by Richard Devlin and Adam Dodek, we argue that a ‘successful’ chief justice will promote and protect these values as they negotiate and manage the many relational dimensions of the role with other judges, with the executive, the Parliament, the profession, the academy, the media, and the wider public. Our study highlights interpretative disputes, including as to whether an individual chief justice has responded to genuine, as opposed to improperly perceived, threats to judicial values and about how a chief justice might best navigate between the values, particularly as new values, such as representativeness and efficiency, can appear in opposition to more traditional values. Such questions are symptomatic of ongoing disagreement about the fragility of judicial values, particularly independence, as well as the subjective nature of any attempt to evaluate judicial performance. We argue that there is a need for a more developed normative framework to better understand – and critique – the individual choices and actions of chief justices.

This chapter develops the socialist model of individual judicial powers, which is characterized by the institutionalization of individual judicial powers. One of the instrumental functions of court design in the socialist state of Vietnam is to make sure that the judiciary is under the control of the government and the Communist Party, which can be achieved by empowering the chief justice and placing them under their control. The chief justice in Vietnam, therefore, becomes towering not because of their jurisprudential excellence but because of the institutional arrangement. The judicial institutional design in this socialist state naturally results in a towering chief justice. The socialist model of individual judicial powers is exemplified by the case of policeman-turned-chief justice Truong Hoa Binh.

John Jay (1745–1829) was the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, and shortly before that coauthored The Federalist with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Earlier, he had been the critical negotiator of the Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolution on favorable terms, and in 1794 he was the negotiator of the Jay Treaty that averted a new war with Britain. His religious faith has been described by political and legal historians as being a new light “Christian enthusiast” and falling among “the most orthodox Christians.” Jay’s own statements about his faith are consistent with those descriptions. The impact of Jay’s faith on his public service and policy positions generally has not been mentioned, other than his belief in a “great plan of Providence.” However, that impact was express in his antislavery, pro-Native American, peacemaking, just war, natural law, religious freedom, and other beliefs and actions.