Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Chief Justice Unable to Work Next Week-Report
Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 11/26/04 | Reuters

Posted on 11/26/2004 6:36:00 PM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October, will not be present when the Supreme Court reconvenes next week to hear oral arguments, the Washington Post reported.

The paper, quoting a court spokeswoman in the news article published on its Web site, reported that Rehnquist would be absent for at least two more weeks during the court's next session that runs from Nov. 29 through Dec. 10.

The chief justice, 80, missed oral arguments in the first two weeks of November, though he initially said he could be on the bench during that time, the paper wrote.

Friday's announcement from the court is the latest indication that Rehnquist has not yet recovered sufficiently to take up the full range of his normal activities, the Post wrote.

He continues to vote on cases despite not attending oral arguments. According to the Post, Rehnquest and his staff at his northern Virginia home are working on his annual report on the federal judiciary to be published Jan. 1.

Two more milestones on the calendar are the court's annual Christmas party, traditionally organized by Rehnquist, which is scheduled for Dec. 17, and President Bush (news - web sites)'s Jan. 20 inauguration, at which the chief justice would normally administer the oath of office, the paper wrote.

Rehnquist's condition is the focus of intense speculation due in part to the possibility that he may have to step down, creating the first vacancy on the court in more than 10 years.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; nextweek; rehnquist; report; scotus; unable; work

1 posted on 11/26/2004 6:36:01 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"President Bush (news - web sites)'s Jan. 20 inauguration, at which the chief justice would normally administer the oath of office...."

I forgot about that. If he is unable, I wonder who will take his place.

2 posted on 11/26/2004 6:39:34 PM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Most seniority / Judge is what I suspect, not sure.


3 posted on 11/26/2004 6:45:27 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

President Bush could also send a message by letting someone like John Roberts of the DC court or one of the Luttig/Wilkinson twosome from the Court of Appeals.

Something to the effect of "I can't have the real Chief Justice here so I'm going to be sworn in by the next one" shot across the bow to Senate Dems.

Not that farfetched when you think about it.

Stevens is the most senior judge, and I'd rather not see him at the inauguration. He could also have Thomas or Scalia do it as well.


4 posted on 11/26/2004 7:04:41 PM PST by jmcclain19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

Please clarify this matter of who would swear in President Bush?


5 posted on 11/26/2004 7:22:40 PM PST by cfrels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cfrels

To my knowledge, any federal judge can administer the oath of office to the President, not just a Supreme Court justice.


6 posted on 11/26/2004 7:57:42 PM PST by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: FarRightTexasDude

Slow down, pardner. :-) Do we know his actual condition? Treatment for thyroid cancer is usually very effective unless it has advanced too far.

At least wait until the new Senate is seated.


8 posted on 11/26/2004 9:48:49 PM PST by c-five
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FarRightTexasDude
I think he may be holding on until the new Congress begins in Jan. Not many people may know it, but who Bush names to be Chief Justice must be RE-confirmed as a judge to make it. That means, in effect that the Senate can vote them out of their judgeship by not confirming them. At least, that's the way I understand the rules.
9 posted on 11/26/2004 9:54:21 PM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; FarRightTexasDude; NormsRevenge
That means, in effect that the Senate can vote them out of their judgeship by not confirming them.

Not true. If the Senate failed to confirm a sitting associate justice to be elevated to Chief Justice, that justice would still have his or her seat on the court. Judges are appointed for life. The only way they leave office is by death, retirement, or impeachment and conviction.

10 posted on 11/27/2004 10:36:25 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Paleo Conservative is correct.

The Senate already confirmed all of the sitting members. They do not have the power to "unconfirm" any single one of them. They could just simply reject the Bush CJ nominee, forcing them to go back to being just a justice(as if that is a rough life to begin with).

And to respond to another comment, anyone can swear in the President.

Check out this story in the Washington Post If You're Available Jan. 20

It covers the entire "What if Rehnquist can't" issue.
11 posted on 11/28/2004 1:55:13 PM PST by jmcclain19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson