Yes, but only if a progressive president demotes a conservative Chief Justice.
Posted on 01/19/2020 7:12:26 PM PST by NewJerseyJoe
In 2005, George W. Bush appointed John Roberts to SCOTUS and also designated him as the Chief Justice, replacing the recently deceased William Rehnquist in both roles.
Question: either now, or when Trump replaces the next departed justice -- can Trump change who is the Chief Justice? Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about how a person is designated to be the chief, I'm wondering if Trump could say, at any time (this is an example):
"I'm nominating Amy Barrett to replace Darth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts will become an Associate Justice, and I appoint Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice."
(This is just an example -- there are all kinds of names that could be thrown into the mix.)
I realize that such an event would be unprecedented and an extraordinary professional embarrassment to Roberts. But it seems to me that there is zero legal obstacle to prevent Trump from doing such a thing. (Although such a move would almost certainly be denied confirmation by the collegial Senate, by both parties.)
“He wants to allow Trump dictatorial powers.”
Very well analyzed MS Vermont Pelosi.
It wasn't "changed." Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination as Associate Justice and resubmitted it as Chief Justice.
-PJ
They changed it to Renquists seat because Roberts had bipartisan support. That right there should have set everyone’s early warning systems off about the guy.
I’d love to see Justice Thomas as Chief Justice......
Well, the Dems could. They can do anything without regard for the Constitution or any law or tradition.
They have the media to push whatever they want.
I think you’re wrong about Roberts. He’s a moderate, not a conservative. But moderates are OK.
I always asked myself this. In my opinion the Chief Justice should be by tenure not a stupid whim of a president.
The constitution specifically mentions the Chief Justice presiding when a president is impeached because the Vice President aka president of the senate has a vested interest in the outcome. Presumably Pence would preside over a Roberts impeachment
They also changed it because O’Connor was a voluntary retirement and Rhenquist was deceased. He died a month before the next term began.
“... who presides if a Chief Justice is the one being impeached?”
From that Constitution thingy: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. “
The more interesting question might be: “Who presides if the Vice President is the one being impeached?”
Here’s a link to a short article on the topic.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2012/10/26/7350/
Article I, § 3, cl. 6, gives to the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments,” requires that Senators be under oath or affirmation when sitting for that purpose, stipulates that the Chief Justice of the United States is to preside when the President of the United States is tried, and provides for conviction on the vote of two-thirds of the members present
However, rereading it again I realized the Chief Justice only presides of impeachment for the President only, not all impeachments. I hadn't read it in awhile. 8>)
Concerning the impeachment of a Vice President, a VP can only vote to break a tie. Since conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate voting to conviction there would be no tie breaker. But who does preside over a VP impeachment, still remains unanswered, Constitutionally. 8>)
I think Roberts was another of obama’s surveillance targets. The boy-God got something democrats continue to hold over Roberts’ head.
Actually, the question is not unanswered.
Again, from that Constitution thingy: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
Lacking an exception that mentions the Vice President, then the Senate itself shall decide. Seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, but only if a progressive president demotes a conservative Chief Justice.
“I think you’re wrong about Roberts. He’s a moderate, not a conservative. But moderates are OK.”
I hate this whole concept of identifying judges as conservatives/liberals-—I wish they would simply follow the law even when it goes against their “beliefs” — and that goes for all judges both “conservative” and “liberal”
I think there should be a poker gamer with the justices and the last one standing be Chief Justice.
At the level of the SC, I’m afraid the distinctions will always matter,
Frankly, I don’t care (much) if a justice has a conservative, moderate, or liberal view of the Constitution.
What burns me is the 4 justices who just don’t care about the Constitution at all.
“...remember when that retard tried to give us Justice Harriet Miers?”
I feel like that was single laziest thing any president in my lifetime has done. It was like, oh I have to nominate a person to SCOTUS? How about that one, over there?
I think the SC Justices themselves should vote to elect their own Chief, say every 4 years or so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.