It could have only have been an intentional decision. . For Brock to request a two-thirds majority because impeachment is so serious a punishment is for him to mistake what impeachment proceedings are all about, the managers added. Instead, the impeachment provisions are intended to protect the public from serious official wrongdoing. If the Senate finds that serious wrongdoing has been proved, public protection mandates that a simple majority vote is sufficient for conviction. Such a high standard was appropriate only for criminal trials, which the Senate proceeding was not.
Impeachments are neither criminal proceedings nor their equivalent.
The managers also objected to Brock's attempt to dismiss all the charges against him. The articles center around Brock's role in a 1987 case involving a powerful state senator, his role in former justice Stephen Thayer's divorce, his alleged false statements to the House Judiciary Committee and his role in presiding over a flawed recusal policy at the court. According to Brock, the charges are too vague for him to be able to fairly defend himself against them. This is particularly true, he argued in last week's motions, of the article faulting him for overseeing a custom that allowed judges to comment on cases they were recused from, since the article does not contain any specific allegations of misconduct. The managers vehemently rebutted this yesterday, defending the recusal article as the charge that went to the heart of the troubles at the Supreme Court.