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?
Why compromise? GW should nominate who he wants and the Republican majority ram it down the minorities throat. They try that filibuster crap again, invoke the nuclear option.
hey- who else but me thinks O'Connor retired now in part to protest the recent rulings allowing the govt to seize land (she voted against it, and wrote the dissenting opinion)
Either they uphold the U.S. Constitution, or they don't. If they don't, it's not an option but a duty to impeach them. If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be an American.
You can't make a "deal" with people who have no intention of honoring any promise they make.
I would say he's either crazy like a fox or crazy like a guy who thinks the ghost of John Wilkes Booth is talking to him through his dental work. Very similiar to your dichotomy. But you are right...we do get some damn interesting ideas here and this is one of them!
The only problem with making a deal with the Dims is they will break the deal as soon as they get what they want.
SCALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, is Bush running again in 2008? He needs to spend as much Conservative capital as he can right now. Forget the perceptions. Democrats are in the perception phase of campaigns. We won.
Here's a radical thought. "Buying a perception of centrism" is useless. We are better served without such perception. Bush should go as hard right as he can. When it is the left's turn, let them go as hard left as they can. Only this way can the electorate become informed and exercise its voting powers.
Under the banner of horsetrading and centrism we get a gradual leftwing drift, even under conservatively inclined presidents and congresses. That is because the issues do not gel in the people's minds and the damn media get to play in the mud.
Thank you for interesting and valued analysis. I believe Kennedy, although moderate, would do a fine job at most of the jobs you described.
But you do raise a good point about him getting first crack at a majority opinion. When a conservative ruling is issued, I would certainly like someone who was taking every concern to create the clearest and most well-reasoned argument possible. On the other hand, if siding with the liberals, Kennedy would probably issue the most restrained ruling of the bunch. So, I think that issue may be a wash, but it is certainly something for the higher legal minds to consider.
Pretty wacky, alright.
He did nothing of the sort. What the decision ruling amounted to is that the local government had the right to do so. In effect this removed a portion of the 14th Amendment's incorporation claim on the 5th Amendment, which for conservatives looking to return to a Constitutional government as envisioned by the Framers is a good thing
Now it is up to the citizens of the respective states to approach their legislatures to pass laws preventing such actions
The problem with this idea is as follows: The CJ is, essentially the Chief Administrator of the US court system and has additional duties beyond those of an Associate Justice:
If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice.
Presides when the Senate tries impeachments of the President of the United States
Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over Presidential impeachments and trials--Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceeding against Bill Clinton.
Presides over the impeachment trial of the Vice President if the Vice President is serving as Acting President (not a Constitutional responsibility but a rule of the Senate).
Officiates at the inauguration of the President of the United States. This is a traditional, not a constitutional, responsibility of the Chief Justice. All federal and state judges, as well as notaries public, are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations.
Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution.
Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to promulgate rules to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States
That's a fair amount of power to give a "moderate."
I tried googling and ended up with nothing definitive. Do you have a link that would help?
Uh, no. We impeach judges who fail to follow their oath to follow what the Constitution plainly says. That's why we have a Constitution, and that's what separates us from autocracy. We impeach them, by the way, through a democratic process that is set out in that same Constitution. But thanks for the Friday hyperbole.
You need to put aside your public school education and read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers. The constitution was originally set up to impeach, convict and remove from office those who abuse the constitution. We may not live in Iran, but with the legislative and executive branches forfeiting their positions of authority to the USSC, we're losing our liberties just like those who lived in Iran.
SCALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't think Judge Roy was a moderate. Thought he was a conservative. Or are you talking about Kennedy?
I'd rather lear the Left scream when W nominates Ann Coutler...
I disagree that it amounts to rewarding bad behavior. Rather, it is quite natural for the person who represents the majority most frequently to preside. We can't be so partisan as to consider disagreeing with us to be "bad behavior."
I don't think reaching for the center makes Scalia or Thomas look foolish, and Thomas, as youngest by far, newest among the Republicans, and least likely to author an opinion, is certainly not in line ahead of Kennedy. (But Scalia is, I admit.)
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.