Huh?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide Which of the preceding is mostly just "entertainment/infotainment?"
Notice that your reading comprehension skills are not even up to your grammar, which sucks. The actual Constitution does not say "keeping order". That was a trial, conducted somewhat as trials are - it had potential (at least) witnesses and evidence and so forth, for starters. Rehnquist did not have to deal with somebody like McConnell trying to pull stunts like excluding witnesses and evidence (deposition or live). - - - So you didn't read it. You fools don't even fact check when you're getting your noses rubbed in it. The Chicago Manual does - famously, explicitly, to the point of being mocked, and including specifically and explicitly the example I provided you - follow traditional grammar rules whenever possible. The standard, traditional formulation of the possessive in that situation is exactly what it recommends, for exactly that reason - it's traditional, time-honored, standard, unambiguous, and familiar to every literate speaker of English. The Chicago even - as is traditional - allows some slack in the system, for semi-literates such as you and for those with reasoned objections in certain special cases. It will "accept" certain variants, if the author is consistent. The example at hand - the formation of the possessive of "Roberts", a polysyllabic name in which the final letter sounds as an 's' rather than a 'z' - is not one of them. (One problem it would create involves the possessive of the plural - more than one Robert in possession. That plural possessive is formed thus: "Roberts' ". You see the issue - your illiteracy creates an ambiguity where there was none.) If you don't like style manuals, for some reason or simply from apparent ignorance of them, there are always sources such as Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" - same info, in a less pedantic context. Excellent book, btw - recommended.
It seems that the senate gets to choose(make) the rules for the impeachment trial. It seems that Chief justice Roberts is a tad more moderate than most senate republicans. Make of that what you will. This could prove entertaining.
No, it says presides over, but even in the first presidential impeachment trial, at least to Chief Justice rulings were overridden by Senate vote. Since none of his rulings are final, presiding over the trial gives him no more power than keeping order. Senators will likely vote, after opening arguments, as to whether they deem witnesses are necessary. And it doesn't matter one with who pulls what, as any ruling by the Chief Justice can be overridden by Senate vote.
It doesn't give him that power either - if the ability to be overriden only by a majority vote of the US Senate is your idea of having no power. What he has is influence, via authority. All he would need is the will to use it.
