Posted on 07/08/2005 12:27:20 PM PDT by dangus
With O'Connor already announcing her intention to retire, Rehnquist leaving us with only a question of when, and the strong likelihood of 85-year-old Stevens or Ginsburg retiring by 2008, I propose that Bush should consider nominating Anthony Kennedy to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to watch Nancy Pelosi's head explode as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia were promoted. But the viscreal thrill of it aside (and yes, I know I'm a junkie when I can refer to the "visceral thrill "of a Supreme Court nomination), it wouldn't do much. "Chief Justice" has become merely an honorary title.
The Democrats are clamoring for nominations in the mold of O'Connor. Kennedy, while having a different focus than O'Connor, is just about exactly as conservative or liberal as O'Connor. And, until a third vacancy occurs, Kennedy will be the swing vote on just about every issue, since Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens are all essentially left-wing partisan hacks, and hopefully Renquist's and O'Connor's replacements will join a staunchly conservative bloc with Scalia and Thomas. So, Kennedy will be the de facto chief of the Supreme Court anyway.
Essentially, it buys Bush a perception of centrism at almost zero cost. The public perception will be of a perfectly balanced court being created by Bush: four liberals, four conservatives, and the Chief Justice as the ideological centrist. And yet, Bush will have steered the court as hard to the right as is presently possible.
Comments?
Hot diggity! I wrote to Kathryn Lopez!
Hot diggity! That's my letter! I just tamed down some of the rhetoric and background!
We liked Roy Moore in Alabama until unelected judges removed him and cancelled my vote.
He likely will be Alabama's next Governor if they don't choose him for the USB Supremes.
Lessee... 1500 hits, AND it got the attention of Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review. Apparently, whether they thought it a good idea or a bad one, it was pretty thought provoking. (*I* never even claimed it was a *good* idea, just an interesting proposal) So... what have YOU done lately?
It is like they skipped Government and History both!
My problem was the examples as well -- they makes no sense because it wouldn't happen and if it did, that person would be sent packing. Still think the example is stupidity not courage or leadership.
IMHO, Ed Whelan makes a point about sending Ginsburg up using the same logic as shown in my post. But,
1. that goes beyond credibility. It will SMELL like a political stunt;
2. As Behind Liberal Lines points out, the Chief Justice does get first crack at writing opinions whenever he is in the majority. For Kennedy, this means reiging in the left even when he sides with them; For ginsburg, it'll mean she becomes the wackiest left-winger becomes the voice of the majority whenever the majority tilts ever so slightly left.
3. I expect there to be another conservative added on, and so will Kennedy. Kennedy seems to like to be on a winnig team, and forsaking the right, only to be overpowered by a new majority, will impugn Kennedy's repuation. My bet is that he'd want to be seen as a poineer of the new majority, rather than vanquished by it.
You are kidding, right? You want to name him to USB Supremes whatever that is? No way -- that man ignored a court order. He took an oath of office and that oath of office would forbid him from ignoring a court order of a higher court.
Some of you on here don't mind someone breaking the the law or ignoring a court order because it is against your agenda. That's not the way it works and shouldn't work. What makes your agenda more important than the next guy's.
You are kidding, right? You want to name him to USB Supremes whatever that is? No way -- that man ignored a court order. He took an oath of office and that oath of office would forbid him from ignoring a court order of a higher court.
Some of you on here don't mind someone breaking the the law or ignoring a court order because it is against your agenda. That's not the way it works and shouldn't work. What makes your agenda more important than the next guy's.
Thanks. Please note my (interior) response to Ed Whelan below.
I predicted earlier that Kennedy will swing back to the right when the Court has the majority leaning right. Very seldom do I ever see a dissenting opinion from him.
I'd like to know what she means by "so wierd you just have to wonder." I don't mind it being called wierd; I called it wacky in my title. But does she mean, "you just have to wonder about the person who'd come up with such an idea," or "so wierd, you just have to wonder if it just might work"?
Since logic and economics is no longer regularly taught in high school, I shall refrain from commenting about those subject.
Since logic and economics is no longer regularly taught in high school, I shall refrain from commenting about those subjects.
It's weird in that a conservative is proposing that a liberal be appointed CJ by a conservative. At a glance that is indeed very weird.
She posted it because as a stratigeric move it's brilliant.
It is not brilliant -- it would be a disaster! Obviously you all don't understand the duties of the Chief Justice and why would this President diss Scalia and Thomas to appoint someone that is on the other side of rulings so often? Makes no sense.
You have to take economics here as the companion to Government in high school.
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.