-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
John Roberts nominated for Chief Justice
- Thread starter tetsuoxb
- Start date
- Status
I clicked on this thread expecting to wonder why it wasn't locked, only to find that this is actually true.
The strategy might be to avoid three hearings--one for each of the new justices, and a third to nominate another justice as Chief. Nominating Roberts as Chief kills two birds with one stone. I still don't like it, though.
It's not like being Chief Justice gives you an extra vote or anything--still, though.
The strategy might be to avoid three hearings--one for each of the new justices, and a third to nominate another justice as Chief. Nominating Roberts as Chief kills two birds with one stone. I still don't like it, though.
It's not like being Chief Justice gives you an extra vote or anything--still, though.
Bluecondor
Member
OK - I'm not getting this. Has there ever been a person nominated to join the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice? Why wouldn't they appoint one of the current associates as Chief?
Hmmm - let me go look up Earl Warren's history....
Hmmm - let me go look up Earl Warren's history....
Bluecondor
Member
Sure enough - Earl Warren was appointed to the court, as Chief Justice, by Ike:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
It just seems strange that you would be Chief Justice on your first day on the job. This would be especially strange on the current Supreme Court with all of the other justices having served for so many years. This 50 year old "rookie" is going to come to DC and set the tone for all of these landmark judicial decisions? It just doesn't sound right....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
It just seems strange that you would be Chief Justice on your first day on the job. This would be especially strange on the current Supreme Court with all of the other justices having served for so many years. This 50 year old "rookie" is going to come to DC and set the tone for all of these landmark judicial decisions? It just doesn't sound right....
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Being Chief Justice doesn't really give you much more weight on the court, it just sort of makes you the Chief Administrator of the Court, setting schedules and the like.
JackFrost2012
Banned
man, good ol' Bush administration never fails to surprise me with their wanton brazenness, no matter HOW used to it I think I've gotten.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
How so? The court needs a Chief Justice before October, and the nomination was already in place for Roberts. Now is as good a time as any to make him Chief Justice. On top of that, most observers thought that Roberts would be Bush's nomination for Chief Justice regardless. With O'Connor retiring, Bush selected him, and the thought was that he would eventually replace Renquist when he retired.
I'm not sure why there is an issue over Roberts. The guy has a spotless record and is, by all accounts, a good human being. He's going to sail through on his nomination.
I'm not sure why there is an issue over Roberts. The guy has a spotless record and is, by all accounts, a good human being. He's going to sail through on his nomination.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Every President nominates a Judge who is in keeping with his political views. It's been happening for years, and it will continue to happen. Clinton did the same when is opportunity arose, and of course Bush is going to do it now.
I know a lot of people here would like to see it differently, but that's not going to happen. In 2008, when a Dem is elected, he (or she) will have the same opportunity, and will no doubt select a liberal to have a seat on the court.
Roberts is a good choice. He isn't overly conservative, and is considered to be one of the brightest legal minds in the country. Even the Democrats in congress have had good things, for the most part, to say about him. The ones who have an axe to grind, have really had to search high and low to find any kind of dirt at all, and those attempts have smacked of purely partisan politics to strike back at Bush, not at his nominee.
I know a lot of people here would like to see it differently, but that's not going to happen. In 2008, when a Dem is elected, he (or she) will have the same opportunity, and will no doubt select a liberal to have a seat on the court.
Roberts is a good choice. He isn't overly conservative, and is considered to be one of the brightest legal minds in the country. Even the Democrats in congress have had good things, for the most part, to say about him. The ones who have an axe to grind, have really had to search high and low to find any kind of dirt at all, and those attempts have smacked of purely partisan politics to strike back at Bush, not at his nominee.
If Democrats really want to keep Roberts out, I really think they should be pushing the ethics violation angle. Trying to get him to comment on specific topics or even broad ones will be tricky at best, and using the cases he argued for in the past isn't exactly clearcut either. What is clear, however, is that he knowingly participated in a ruling that favored Bush while also being in discussions with him about being on the Supreme Court.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Lathentar said:
Funny, all you "I hate Bush for anything" people make me laugh. He is a conserative President, with a conservative agenda, a conservative House, and a conservative Senate. What do you expect him to do?
He is doing exactly what he needs to do, and with the upcoming political battles he has to face it was imperative for him to move fast. You all act like low approval ratings or any negative news has ever affect what he is going to do. Just give up you can't win, you are just going to die angry.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Lathentar said:
Actually, I'm a moderate conservative, who generally votes Republican, although never straight ticket. I was just speculating on a Dem winning the next election mostly on the current sentiment of the public at large. A lot can happen before 2008 to change that, and obviously the ticket will make a major impact on how people vote as well.
GAF is certainly anti-Bush, and it rears it's head in the OT every chance it gets. This thread is just another example of it.
It shoudl also be noted that yes, Rehnquist was a conservative, but he also had a tendency to bring the court to a more moderate, centered state and unexpected times. Judges often moderate their views while on the court as they have to be more objective when it comes to interpreting the law.
Kung Fu: If I could trust Bush to pick a level headed conservative to the court, I wouldn't mind and all the comments you gave would generally apply. However, with Scalia as his favorite I get worried. I mean, this isn't the respectable Republican party that believes in policy-making, discussion, and compromise anymore. Now, Roberts may yet prove to be as such, and that's fine... but now we have two seats to fill...
The Yahoo article says that O'connor will keep her seat until her replacement is found, so really Roberts would be replacing Rehnquist and then a replacement for O'connor would be nominated and appointed.
As to Roberts' ability to be Chief Justice, he was Rehnquist's former Supreme Court Clerk and as others have pointed out the position is largely administrative. Dems have even admitted that they haven't found anything that would make them oppose Roberts' nomination.
As to Roberts' ability to be Chief Justice, he was Rehnquist's former Supreme Court Clerk and as others have pointed out the position is largely administrative. Dems have even admitted that they haven't found anything that would make them oppose Roberts' nomination.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
well there goes my constitutional rights to marry my cow.
Bluecondor
Member
The whole problem with downplaying this on the grounds that Chief Justice is "purely administrative" - is that it's not like the Chief Justice is charged with filing, getting copies and making coffee. Instead - the Chief Justice has significant influence over what cases get heard by the court and when, etc. It's not that the Chief Justice has a more powerful vote or a more heavily-weighted opinion. Instead the power fo the Chief Justice role lies in the position's control over access to the Supreme Court. Remember that the court only hears a minute fraction (I think it is less than 10%) of cases that petition the court for a hearing. The Chief Justice plays a significant role in facilitating this....
I'm rather indifferent to Roberts and his nomination, whether to the Supreme Court or to the Supreme Court as chief justice. As Tommy noted, Bush is a conservative and that's his perogative to nominate a conservative; I certainly don't expect Bush to break ranks with his far right political base by nominating anyone more left-leaning. Roberts is about as good as things get with the guy and is probably the only nomination he's made that I'm fairly netural about. Roberts, by all accounts, may not turn out to be the man Bush thinks he is in any case, but I'm not holding my breath. It's more concerning to see who fills in with O'Connor, as I don't expect Bush to have the good will of nominating two sensible people in a row.
Would anyone mind Gonzalez to replace O'Connor? I mean he seems conservative, but on some social issues is moderate. I'm a libby here, so trying to "minimize damage" and I don't think he'd be terrible in issues anyone gives a shit about. Property rights be damned, everyone is thinking about abortion and teh homoz.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Gonzalez, except for the fact that he has a TREMENDOUS MOTHER.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Gonzalez, except for the fact that he has a TREMENDOUS MOTHER.
Mr. Blonde
Member
Diablos said:
Roberts IS a moderate.
Ninja Scooter
Member
mdm said:
not as hard as Chief Justice Phillip Banks.
Excess Poo Flakes
Banned
I nominate Tom Brady
Ninja Scooter
Member
so then its settled. The new supreme court will consist of Tom Brady, Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince and Bill Clinton. To fill the rest of the seats i will nominate Shawn Michaels, Brian Peppers, and the fat girl from Facts of LIfe.
I think there's the potential that a Roberts Supreme Court could be more partisan than the Rehnquist Supreme Court was, or a theoretical Scalia Supreme Court would be. Even though Rehnquist was solidly conservative on law and order issues, he was at least objective enough to allow cases like Hamdi and Padilla to be presented to the Court. Likewise, when Congress and the President overstepped its bounds to federalize the Schiavo case, the Rehnquist Supreme Court did not play along. It's possible if the Chief Justice had been a Bush stooge, as Roberts may be, cases like Padilla's would not have been heard, while the Schiavo case would still be dragging on.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
oh great we're dead. I never thought id say this but..how canada this time of year...
- Status