Anyone who has ever been pulled over for a traffic violation knows the drill.  Below a certain threshold, such as driving while intoxicated or another egregious violation that impounds your car and sends you directly to jail, you are issued a traffic citation or ticket.

After signing acknowledgment of receipt, but not an admission of guilt, there is usually one of three courses of action.  Certain tickets make you appear in traffic court; other transgressions allow you to send in a fine along with court or processing fees, which is also an admission of guilt; and the third is to go to court.

One can go to court to present reasoned, thoughtful arguments, hoping to have the judge find in his favor, or simply game the odds and hope the police officer, sheriff's deputy, or state trooper who reported the transgression is not present.

If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty.  The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one's accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law.  The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.

The individual, the "whistleblower," reporting President Trump's transgression is not present.  Also, the House impeachment charges are not built on any criminal behavior by President Trump.  Combine these two, and Chief Justice Roberts should have gone on record to gavel the impeachment closed.  He should have thrown the case out.

The senators, according to their rules and the Constitution, could have overridden his decision, but at least he would have been on record upholding the rule of law and the Sixth Amendment.

Not to push the analogy much farther, but it is as if President Trump were simply issued a traffic ticket for driving a car one day.

This is not a trivial debate point.

If the chief justice had immediately said "case dismissed with prejudice," then it would have sent a powerful signal that  a future chief justice will have a solid precedent to also never, ever tolerate a sham political impeachment.  Such a historic move would have given lightweight political hacks pause.  

However, by not showing  a modicum of judgment, even that exhibited  by a traffic court judge, let alone the moral and ethical courage to stop such a travesty, Chief Justice Roberts has allowed what will surely become a constitutional  "Groundhog Day" of impeach, impeach, impeach.  That is already being threatened by Democrat members and their fake news cheering section before this trial is even over.

Since the chief justice choked on using an ethical and legal off ramp even before a Senate vote of not guilty is assured, there is still one last moment that can freeze such egregious, constitutionally destructive impeachment  behavior, hopefully for a few generations.

That moment will come on Election Day 2020.  There is a simple question for voters in a House district that went for President Trump in 2016 and are now represented by a Democrat member.  Do I want to continue to pay a person $174,000 to treat my vote like a piece of crap while continuing to abdicate actual legislative responsibilities?  Because that is what they are doing.