Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_18)
Just when you think Bush couldn't get any worse, he goes and pulls this bullshtein.
WORST.
PRESIDENT.
EVER.
:puke
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 05, 2005, 08:15:21 AM
Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_18)
Just when you think Bush couldn't get any worse, he goes and pulls this bullshtein.
WORST.
PRESIDENT.
EVER.
:puke
Not unprecedented. Same thing happened with Earl Warren. He had been promised the "next Court opening," by Eisenhower and that opening just happened to be the Chief Justice.
QuoteNaming Roberts for chief justice was about the only way to ensure all nine seats on the court are filled when it begins its next term Oct. 3. If the court began a new term with only eight justices, it could have resulted in 4-4 ties on controversial cases.
QuoteThat means Bush would have to find a new nominee for O'Connor's seat. She has offered to remain on the bench until a successor is seated.
So, O'Connor can start the regular session on Oct. 3, whereas Rehnquist's corpse cannot.
Bush does plenty of partisan and otherwise inane/stupid things that are worth mentioning and whining about, but getting the court filled this way is common sense due to the timing of Rehnquist's death.
He could simply elevate a more experienced justice to the post.
Placing a judicial neophyte like Roberts in the most important legal post in the country is reckless and stupid.
Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice!
I'd rather have Roberts as Chief Justice than Thomas or Scalia.
You surely understand that I'd rather have Roberts than those two as well. But when these are the guys we're talking about, farg it. The foxes are in the henhouse, who cares which one is called "boss."
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 05, 2005, 10:32:43 AM
I'd rather have Roberts as Chief Justice than Thomas or Scalia.
I agree.
The more I think about this, it is actually a shrewd political move by Bush:
1. It reduces the number of Senate confirmation fights that Bush has to go through. While I don't believe that the Senate would actually filibuster a sitting member of the Supreme Court that is nominated for the Chief Justice, it is possible. If one of the existing Justices were to be named Chief Justice of the United States (the official title, as I just learned on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States) :D), they indeed would have to be reconfirmed.
2. Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts%2C_Jr.) is more politically palatable for the Democrats, and is less likely to be a political lightning rod for the mudslinging that both sides like to engage. Scalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia) and Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) were both controversial candidates and have been somewhat controversial justices (mainly because of the sensationalism of the modern media, IMO). Roberts is less likely to start a Capital Hill Pissing Match.
3. It allows Bush to start the Supreme Court session in October with a full contingent, as O'Connor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor) is delaying her retirement until Bush names HER successor. Since Roberts is now considered Rehnquist's sucessor, it buys Bush some time.
4. Until a new Chief Justice is names, his duties fall to the senior member of the Court. Right now, that justice is the comparatively liberal-leaning Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens), who was an appointee of Gerald Ford. Roberts, while probably not as conservative as Scalia or Thomas, is probably a lot closer to Bush's ideology than is Stevens.
What I am interested in now is the person that Bush names to replace O'Connor. He'll be under heavy pressure to name someone who is 1) a minority or a woman; and 2) a moderate. I am interested to see if Bush goes for a Justice to try to bring the nation together, some sort of compromise candidate that will be politically expedient, but will turn off his base, or if Bush gets stubborn and send in a conservative name to the Senate and gets into a fight with the Senate Democrats.
What this move does is it allows Bush to wait until Roberts is safely through the nomination process before he sends his second nomination. If he does so, it will probably be a conservative nomination, and Bush will be bracing for a conflict with the Democrats. If he had to name one before the Roberts confirmation was secure, he'd have to send a more moderate name or risk having BOTH nominations derailed.
On a final note, it is actually surprising that the Court is as balanced as it is, considering that seven of the nine justices have been named by Republican presidents. Below are the Supreme Court justices, with birth year, nomination year and nomination Presidnet:
1. John Paul Stevens: Born 1920, Nominated 1975 by Gerald Ford (R)
2. Sandra Day O'Connor: Born 1930, Nominated 1981 by Ronald Reagan (R)
3. Antonin Scalia: Born 1936, Nominated 1986 by Ronald Reagan (R)
4. Anthony Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy): Born 1936, Nominated 1988 by Ronald Reagan (R)
5. David Souter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter): Born 1939, Nominated 1990 by George H. W. Bush (R)
6. Clarence Thomas: Born 1948, Nominated 1991 by George H. W. Bush (R)
7. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg): Born 1933, Nominated 1993 by Bill Clinton (D)
8. Stephen Breyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer): Born 1938, Nominated 1994 by Bill Clinton (D)
9. John Roberts: Born 1955, Nominated 2005 by George W. Bush (R)- NOT YET CONFIRMED
Of the eight standing Justices:
Scalia, Thomas are [retty consistently conservative.
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are pretty consistently liberal.
Kennedy and O'Connor are swing voters, with Kenney tending to be more liberal, O'Connor more conservative.
It is believed that Roberts will be a conservative voice in the Court, but that is not guaranteed. Earl Warren, the last person to be named directly to the post of Chief Justice, was a long-time Republican politician when President Eisenhower named him Chief Justice in 1953. Warren presided over some of the landmark cases of the 1950s and 1960s, including Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, which struck down state segregation laws pertaining to public schools. He was so intertwined with the early Civil Rights decisions that many in the South put bumper stickers on their cars that said "Impeach Warren." Is Roberts likely to go down a liberal path on the Court? It's unlikely, but not impossible. I'm sure that Bush and his administration did their homework in researching and interviewing Roberts, but no one can know how his views of his job will change his outlook when he knows that his decisions can change the nation's interpretation of the Constitution.
It's no shocker to me that the general alarmism romey was trying to incite with this thread was shot down fairly easily with common sense on this board, while the lemming anti-Bushians and the moronic Bush apologists duke it out for 90+ posts on the "other" board.
P.S. He wouldn't go there on this board, but when pressed who he'd RATHER Bush had picked for chief justice:
QuoteScalia, actually.
Although I disagree with his stated opinions more often than not, it's pretty clear that he's a capable justice with a sound mind and firm convictions.
How do I know that? His years of experience on the Supreme Court bench.
Ha.
What FF isn't telling you is that I was asked which justice I would choose between Scalia and Clarence Thomas and I chose Scalia for the reasons outlined.
Between the two evils, I chose the lesser of the two.
Also - quoting from the EMB, are we? farging lame, bro, even for you. And I still stand by my assertions that nominating a relative newbie jurist to the post of Chief Justice is a mistake on Bush's part. Whether or not it's a politically savvy move is immaterial to this discussion.
I'll allow that nominating a "moderate" guy like Roberts is likely going to result in him sailing through the confirmation process, but that doesn't necessarily mean his choice is a good one nor does it mean he'll be a competent justice.
Competence is so overrated these days.
rome:
The fact of the matter is that you got all pissed at GwB right off the bat, for being so stupid as to nominate a new appointee for Chief Justice. Even after being presented with past instances where this is the case and non-partisan logic which all-but confirms it was the most prudent decision, you have yet to just simply say, "My bad. I should have done the research before getting angry about the decision. It turns out it's not so bad after all."
Your arguing style pretty much embodies everything that is wrong about the political divide in this country.
Bush Choice on Nominee 2 Not Expected Soon (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/scotus_bush;_ylt=Asv0DMvARLzk_If.yj7I_W5I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
This reinforces my theory that Bush will wait until after Roberts is safely confirmed into the Supreme Court.
The only reason he would name one sooner is if he's going to name a moderate to replace O'Connor. If he waits, it very well could be a hard-line conservative.
Just say no to Al G.
Why, you got a problem with torture?
No, I love torture, but I hate hispanic people.
Yes, I'm kidding. I just don't think Gonzales is qualified. Also, he'd royally piss off people on both sides of the aisle... just about the last thing we need from Bushie right now.
White American > Yellow American.
:-*
Simpsons hater.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 07, 2005, 10:14:49 PM
White American > Yellow American.
:-*
Yeah, but I was talking about the cheese.
I was the extra gunman on the grassy knoll. George H.W. Bush was my spotter.
Impeach Lee Harvey Oswald!
Quote from: FFatPatt on September 08, 2005, 08:26:57 AM
I was the extra gunman on the grassy knoll. George H.W. Bush was my spotter.
:-D
QuoteBREAKING NEWS
Senate Judiciary Committee votes 13-to-5 to send nomination of John Roberts for chief justice to full Senate. Details soon.
Democrats in Senate:
"We better OK this guy, or our female interns are going to be calling Clarence Thomas's schlong 'chief rod'."