PDA

View Full Version : Bush nominates Roberts to replace Rehnquist



RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 09:31 AM
It is reported that President Bush has nominated John Roberts to replace the late William Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Bush will now nominate someone else to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as an Associate Justice.

WVRed
09-05-2005, 09:36 AM
Is this the first time a newcomer has been nominated for Chief Justice?

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 09:39 AM
Is this the first time a newcomer has been nominated for Chief Justice?
Actually nominating a newcomer for Chief Justice has been the norm, rather than elevating an Associate Justice to Chief Justice. I can't really give you the "stats" off the top of my head, but both Chief Justice Earl Warren and Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rehnquist's two most recent predecessors as Chief Justice, first came to the Supreme Court when appointed to the Chief Justiceship.

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 10:35 AM
Since there will be endless speculation on who Bush will now nominate to replace O'Connor, with Roberts having been tapped to replace Rehnquist, I'll go ahead and set forth my two leading guesses at the moment: either Emilio Garza or Edith Jones. Both are regarded as conservatives, both currently serve on the federal bench, and either one would seem to serve a political purpose, since Garza would be the first Hispanic justice and Jones would be a female justice, replacing another female.

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 06:13 PM
I'm been thinking some more about who Bush probably will name, and should name, to replace O'Connor now that Roberts has been designated as Rehnquist's replacement. Obviously Bush will want to name a relatively young, probably conservative person, probably a Republican by affiliation. He may want a so-called "stealth" candidate, someone who has few published views that opponents can attack during the confirmation process.
I finally thought of such a candidate, someone who is the same age (50) as Roberts, and who meets the above criteria. This person has never served on the bench, so he has no opinions opponents can cite in their attacks upon him.
I'm tanned (well actually I'm sort of pale), :) rested and ready.
Now I realize I fail to fulfill certain probable political considerations. I'm neither Hispanic nor female. But hey, I like Jennifer Lopez, Penelope Cruz and Natalie Wood......what's that? Natalie Wood wasn't Hispanic? Well, she played a Puerto Rican in "West Side Story," so that's close. ;) If it'd help, I'm willing to change my name to make it more Hispanic sounding. ;) There's not much I'm willing to do about not being female, but I like women-is that close enough? :D
What's that? My legal career has been mediocre? Hey, former Senator Roman Hruska, speaking in favor of the failed nomination of G. Harold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court, once opined that "mediocre people need represented on the court, too." :p:
I just thought of one problem. If opponents find all my posts here, that may be a sufficient "paper trail" ( actually a paperless trail) to sink my nomination. How can I delete all record of those posts? :evil: Actually this post would be enough in all probability. ;)
GAC, can I count on your support?

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 06:18 PM
We all saw what a keen eye for competence Bush had in nominating Brown and Chertoff to their respective positions. Now we're supposed to trust he'll appoint someone competent to the bench?

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 06:20 PM
We all saw what a keen eye for competence Bush had in nominating Brown and Chertoff to their respective positions. Now we're supposed to trust he'll appoint someone competent to the bench?
See? I fit the bill! ;)

Reds4Life
09-05-2005, 06:22 PM
We all saw what a keen eye for competence Bush had in nominating Brown and Chertoff to their respective positions. Now we're supposed to trust he'll appoint someone competent to the bench?

Nobody has questioned Roberts competency, in fact he seems to be in the good graces of many Democrats. Iím sure whoever is selected to replace Justice OíConner will at least be as qualified as Mr. Roberts.

Unassisted
09-05-2005, 06:33 PM
This will save the administration from having to manage 3 nomination tracks. Justice Scalia must be an unhappy guy today. I'm sure he figured he was a lock for that CJ nomination.

IIRC, there were many Latino noses out of joint when the first O'Connor seat nominee wasn't Hispanic. I doubt that they will be unhappy with the second one.

Rojo
09-05-2005, 07:42 PM
I predicted Edith Jones for the O'Connor spot, IIRC, she's from Louisiana.

Yachtzee
09-05-2005, 07:50 PM
I'm been thinking some more about who Bush probably will name, and should name, to replace O'Connor now that Roberts has been designated as Rehnquist's replacement. Obviously Bush will want to name a relatively young, probably conservative person, probably a Republican by affiliation. He may want a so-called "stealth" candidate, someone who has few published views that opponents can attack during the confirmation process.
I finally thought of such a candidate, someone who is the same age (50) as Roberts, and who meets the above criteria. This person has never served on the bench, so he has no opinions opponents can cite in their attacks upon him.
I'm tanned (well actually I'm sort of pale), :) rested and ready.
Now I realize I fail to fulfill certain probable political considerations. I'm neither Hispanic nor female. But hey, I like Jennifer Lopez, Penelope Cruz and Natalie Wood......what's that? Natalie Wood wasn't Hispanic? Well, she played a Puerto Rican in "West Side Story," so that's close. ;) If it'd help, I'm willing to change my name to make it more Hispanic sounding. ;) There's not much I'm willing to do about not being female, but I like women-is that close enough? :D
What's that? My legal career has been mediocre? Hey, former Senator Roman Hruska, speaking in favor of the failed nomination of G. Harold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court, once opined that "mediocre people need represented on the court, too." :p:
I just thought of one problem. If opponents find all my posts here, that may be a sufficient "paper trail" ( actually a paperless trail) to sink my nomination. How can I delete all record of those posts? :evil: Actually this post would be enough in all probability. ;)
GAC, can I count on your support?

RedsBaron for Justice!

Rojo
09-05-2005, 07:53 PM
If it'd help, I'm willing to change my name to make it more Hispanic sounding. ;)

Worked for me. ;)

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 08:00 PM
Iím sure whoever is selected to replace Justice OíConner will at least be as qualified as Mr. Roberts.

I'm not. His father sent up an incompetent (Thomas), so it's not like it isn't in the blood somewhere to screw up.

Whatever the case, the Dems now have some wiggle room to throw down on his selection. They should bust his chops and filibuster with impunity (that is, if they have any guts).

Reds4Life
09-05-2005, 08:05 PM
Obstructionism solves nothing. If a filibuster is attempted majority leadership will bring back the nuclear option and the nominee will be confirmed anyway. I doubt many of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate will support a filibuster anyway.

Rojo,

Both of the Edithís (Jones & Clement) are on the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 08:10 PM
Obstructionism solves nothing. If a filibuster is attempted majority leadership will bring back the nuclear option and the nominee will be confirmed anyway. I doubt many of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate will support a filibuster anyway.

Rojo,

Both of the Edithís (Jones & Clement) are on the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.

The nuclear option, if used, would open wide the door for a Senate majority change in 2006, and some gains in the House. Republicans are skating on the thinnest ice imaginable with the American people.

Obstructionism kept Bork off the Court. That solved something, IMO.

Roberts doesn't appear to be Satan, like Thomas and Scalia both did.

alex trevino
09-05-2005, 08:33 PM
I'm been thinking some more about who Bush probably will name, and should name, to replace O'Connor now that Roberts has been designated as Rehnquist's replacement. Obviously Bush will want to name a relatively young, probably conservative person, probably a Republican by affiliation. He may want a so-called "stealth" candidate, someone who has few published views that opponents can attack during the confirmation process.
I finally thought of such a candidate, someone who is the same age (50) as Roberts, and who meets the above criteria. This person has never served on the bench, so he has no opinions opponents can cite in their attacks upon him.
I'm tanned (well actually I'm sort of pale), :) rested and ready.
Now I realize I fail to fulfill certain probable political considerations. I'm neither Hispanic nor female. But hey, I like Jennifer Lopez, Penelope Cruz and Natalie Wood......what's that? Natalie Wood wasn't Hispanic? Well, she played a Puerto Rican in "West Side Story," so that's close. ;) If it'd help, I'm willing to change my name to make it more Hispanic sounding. ;) There's not much I'm willing to do about not being female, but I like women-is that close enough? :D
What's that? My legal career has been mediocre? Hey, former Senator Roman Hruska, speaking in favor of the failed nomination of G. Harold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court, once opined that "mediocre people need represented on the court, too." :p:
I just thought of one problem. If opponents find all my posts here, that may be a sufficient "paper trail" ( actually a paperless trail) to sink my nomination. How can I delete all record of those posts? :evil: Actually this post would be enough in all probability. ;)
GAC, can I count on your support?


Redbarron I was thinking of you or Judge Learned Hand...Since Hand is dead has to be you :)

alex trevino
09-05-2005, 08:35 PM
I'm not. His father sent up an incompetent (Thomas), so it's not like it isn't in the blood somewhere to screw up.

Whatever the case, the Dems now have some wiggle room to throw down on his selection. They should bust his chops and filibuster with impunity (that is, if they have any guts).

I almost always disagree with Scalia but atleast i respect his intelligence..Reading Thomas' opinions is pretty funny...Scalia will write a four page opinion and Thomas will write a paragraph that basically says "Me too" :eek:

cincinnati chili
09-05-2005, 08:37 PM
Even if this is the norm, it's a bit of a slap in the face to Scalia, IMO. I guess there isn't much that the CJ gets to do, other than decide who gets to write the opinions. Perhaps there's some dirt out on Scalia that the Republicans didn't want dug up at a confirmation hearing. I know there was that thing about him going on hunting trips with politicians.

Reds4Life
09-05-2005, 08:47 PM
Even if this is the norm, it's a bit of a slap in the face to Scalia, IMO. I guess there isn't much that the CJ gets to do, other than decide who gets to write the opinions. Perhaps there's some dirt out on Scalia that the Republicans didn't want dug up at a confirmation hearing. I know there was that thing about him going on hunting trips with politicians.

I think age played a big role. Bush has made it clear he wants younger nominees (50's mostly) so they can serve on the court for the long term. Scalia isn't a spring chicken anymore; I think he's almost 70.

I thought it would have been easier to get a current Justice confirmed for the CJ spot since it would be very hard to paint them as unqualified or to attack them. I don't think an Associate Justice nominated for CJ has ever been filibustered.

RedsBaron
09-05-2005, 09:38 PM
I think age played a big role. Bush has made it clear he wants younger nominees (50's mostly) so they can serve on the court for the long term. Scalia isn't a spring chicken anymore; I think he's almost 70.

I thought it would have been easier to get a current Justice confirmed for the CJ spot since it would be very hard to paint them as unqualified or to attack them. I don't think an Associate Justice nominated for CJ has ever been filibustered.
Scalia is 69 years old.

Yachtzee
09-05-2005, 10:56 PM
Even if this is the norm, it's a bit of a slap in the face to Scalia, IMO. I guess there isn't much that the CJ gets to do, other than decide who gets to write the opinions. Perhaps there's some dirt out on Scalia that the Republicans didn't want dug up at a confirmation hearing. I know there was that thing about him going on hunting trips with politicians.

I don't know if it's really a slap to Scalia. Regardless of one's opinion on his views, I think that, after having spent the last year reading a significant number of Supreme Court opinions, he'll likely go down as one of the all-time great conservative jurists. And while the general public tends to think of Supreme Court eras in terms of the presiding CJ ("The Warren Court", "The Rehnquist Court"), the reality is that the CJ is more like the "team captain" or the "player/manager." It doesn't necessarily mean that he/she's the team's "best" player.

Unassisted
09-05-2005, 11:11 PM
I think age played a big role. Bush has made it clear he wants younger nominees (50's mostly) so they can serve on the court for the long term. Scalia isn't a spring chicken anymore; I think he's almost 70.

I thought it would have been easier to get a current Justice confirmed for the CJ spot since it would be very hard to paint them as unqualified or to attack them. I don't think an Associate Justice nominated for CJ has ever been filibustered.Your assessment of the age issue makes sense. I think the opposite is true as far as ease of confirmation for a sitting justice to be promoted to CJ - especially one that has written as many opinions as Scalia. With all of those Supreme Court opinions on the record, it would be easy for Senators to pick them apart and find a handful that make Scalia fit whatever niche a senator who opposes his nomination would care to pigeonhole him into.

jmcclain19
09-05-2005, 11:23 PM
Count me as disappointed that Justice Kennedy wasn't promoted to Chief Justice.

Of the last decade, Kennedy and O'Connor were by far the most influential.

I know he never had a chance, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

Rojo
09-06-2005, 01:39 AM
Count me as disappointed that Justice Kennedy wasn't promoted to Chief Justice.

A Kennedy fan, huh. Interesting. Was your favorite Beatle George Harrison? :)

jmcclain19
09-06-2005, 02:25 AM
A Kennedy fan, huh. Interesting. Was your favorite Beatle George Harrison? :)
Ahh George Harrison. There was just something in the way he moved. ;)

George Foster
09-08-2005, 01:45 AM
I'm not. His father sent up an incompetent (Thomas), so it's not like it isn't in the blood somewhere to screw up.

Whatever the case, the Dems now have some wiggle room to throw down on his selection. They should bust his chops and filibuster with impunity (that is, if they have any guts).

If being incompetent means you are against local govenments taking my home and land to build a Wal-Mart under the lie of "economic development for the common good" then we need more guys like Thomas. That's not incompetent.

"Incompetent" is voting to allow the 10 commandments at the Texas State House, but not allowing them in a court house. It should be both or none at all. It was a 5-4 vote both ways. I believe Bryer switched his vote on the Kentucky case. Above the justices is Moses holding the slabs of the 10 commandments in both arms. I guess that is ok? Talk about the big pick elephant in the room!

If the Dem's filibuster any nominee, it will hurt them in the 06 election and they know it. Every nominee deserves an up or down vote if they pass committee. There are consequences(sp?) to elections, or should I say losing elections.

Rojo
09-08-2005, 03:36 AM
It should be both or none at all.....Above the justices is Moses holding the slabs of the 10 commandments in both arms. I guess that is ok?

I never really understood this argument. It's like not charging someone for littering because there was already trash on the ground.

If you ask me it should be "none at all", but I'm not a nut about it. If I'm not pushed, I'm not going to demand that all long-standing religious iconography be removed -- despite that fact that it clearly violates the Constitution. But that's just me, I gotta bigger fish to fry. However, if you want punch new holes in the church/state wall, well, I gotta call you on that.

George Foster
09-08-2005, 11:28 AM
I never really understood this argument. It's like not charging someone for littering because there was already trash on the ground.

If you ask me it should be "none at all", but I'm not a nut about it. If I'm not pushed, I'm not going to demand that all long-standing religious iconography be removed -- despite that fact that it clearly violates the Constitution. But that's just me, I gotta bigger fish to fry. However, if you want punch new holes in the church/state wall, well, I gotta call you on that.

I did not say I was for it or against it. My point was if it was unconstitutional for a court house to post the ten commandments, then the marble and granite needs to be removed from the supreme Court of moses and the commandments. At least 5 of the justices on this issue, live in a vaccum. O'Connor said , "a person should enter a court house and not feel that christian principles or any religious principles stand in the way of their dispute." "and oh.. by the way, don't mind that burning bush, and that moses character above me, holding those tablets!" What a joke they are!