Lindaland
  Global Unity
  What Kind of Precedent...

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   What Kind of Precedent...
proxieme
unregistered
posted September 05, 2005 08:57 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
is there for an action like this?

Bush Nominates Roberts As Chief Justice

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a man who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices.

"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."

"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others. in his extraordinary career."

The selection of Roberts, who has drawn little criticism, helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the president's approval ratings are sagging.

Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.

"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes," Bush said. "It's in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term."

Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans "like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness." He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.

The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.

Bush already had nominated Roberts to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It requires just take a little paper shuffling to change the nomination for Rehnquist's seat. Bush still must fill O'Connor's seat but she has promised to stay on the court until a successor is name.

---

I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about the Supreme Court...but it doesn't seem kosher that someone who was originally just nominated for an Associate Justice seat, someone who has zero time in said position, is suddenly under an attempt to vault him to the highest seat.

Does anyone out there who's more knowlegdeable than me on the matter know if there's any sort of precedent for this?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 05, 2005 12:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wish I did, but I don't. Seems like they would promote someone who is already serving there.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted September 05, 2005 01:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i'm surprised he doesnt just fire the damn libs (with a military flamethrower) and replace them with clones of pat robertson and tom delay....hehe

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted September 05, 2005 07:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I admit to knowing next to nothing about the Supreme Court. But common sense would lead me to believe that someone already on the Court, someone who has, God forbid, proven himself would get the big seat.

I bet Clarence is really, really p*ssed .

Obviously George has lost his marbles.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 05, 2005 09:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm guessing it's a move to keep O'Connor on the bench for a bit longer. By switching Roberts to the Chief Justive position he would no longer be available to fill Sandra O'Connor's position, which she has said she'll fill until a replacement is confirmed. This way the court will be able to convene when it should as long as Roberts is in place.

If Bush put Thomas up for Chief Justice, then it would seem like a silly move to move Roberts laterally to his taking Thomas' place instead of O'Connor's.

That's my guess.

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted September 06, 2005 10:22 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No more silly than making this young, green rookie Chief Justice. It's offensive and shows little regard for the Supreme Court.

IP: Logged

trillian
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 06, 2005 01:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for trillian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Heaven help us.

A good friend keeps urging me to move to Canada. Perhaps I should consider.

IP: Logged

trillian
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 06, 2005 04:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for trillian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From today's edition of USA Today:

quote:
Q: Is it unusual for somoene who has not been on the court to be appointed to lead it as chief justice? A: No. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died Saturday...was a Nixon appointee who had been on the high court for about 14 years when he was elevated to chief by President Reagan in 1986. But Rehnquist was only the fifth associate justice in history to become chief. Most of the nation's 16 chief justices were not previously on the high court. For example, Warren Burger, who was appointed by President Nixon in 1969, had been on a lower federal appeals court. Earl Warren, chosen by President Eisenhower in 1953, had been governor of California.

Hope this hels in our understanding.

------------------
The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine. -Indigo Girls

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted September 06, 2005 04:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Cool beans

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted September 06, 2005 04:48 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks trill. That really floors me. He stilll seems a bit young and inexperienced to me. Maybe I'm biased.

IP: Logged

ScotScorp
unregistered
posted September 08, 2005 04:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The only thing that concerns me is that Roberts, if nominated for Chief Justice, would be in that position for a possible 25+ years... WAY WAY WAY too long. Not that he would have a HUGE amount of power, but more so than most other justices, and he could be a little too influencial if he were to be bias on any issues.

Plus the fact his wife is an active pro-lifer, which doesn't offend me, but power of choice and respecting a woman's personal decision tends to be the law on the books in most states these days.

------------------
Scorpio/Leo/Leo

"All things are bound together. All things connect." Chief Seattle

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a