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?
Thanks for providing the list. I read it carefully, twice, and my position is unchanged, though. You consider these positions a fair amount of power? Ceremony and ensuring the smooth running of the courts are about it. I wouldn't blink twice if she became CJ while we got 2-3 conservative judges.
Amen. All the compromise with liberals is what has caused so many problems in the first place. Plus, they never stick to their end of the deal.
Moore would alienate other justices and almost certainly never be chosen to draft the majority decision.
How well does he persuade his colleagues: Terribly.
How well does he form coalitions: Terribly.
How likely is his view likely to be that of the 5th (and hence, controlling) opinion: Impossibly.
The point is not to explode liberals' heads, it is to effectively establish legal precedent.
Not a bad idea.
Sounds like the same idea I had regarding offering McCain the VP slot with Bush.
Let McLame travel across the country, kiss the babies, talk to the ladies' auxillary and get him out of the Senate.
The correct title is Chief Justice of The United States.
The Chief Justice does not decide which cases are brought before the court and only gets on vote.
Sounds like a figurehead position to me.
That's not the point: it strips the Democrats of the argument that his other nominations are extreme, helping Bush to appoint the most reliably conservative justices he can find. That in turn, helps the Republicans carry the day without having to resort to the nuclear option. All these factors will help Republican senators get re-elected in '06, '08 and '10.
Not me. You don't protest without telling people you're protesting.
Dems heads are exploding with rage and fear as we speak. Their 30yr reign of terror could be coming to an end.
Tolerance and Diversity. Unless you are a conservative or believe in God.
The Chief Justice does not decide which cases are brought before the court and only gets on vote.
Sounds like a figurehead position to me.
>> The only problem with making a deal with the Dims is they will break the deal as soon as they get what they want. <<
It's not a deal with Democrats; it's a deal with the electorate to build public confidence in the stability of Republicans as a ruling party, and to build political support from voters for conservative justices.
I think this is the wrong approach. Reagan did not compromise his core principles on, for example, national defense -- instead, he acted on principle and explained the principle to the people.
I would like to see Bush elevate Thomas, and use that as an opportunity to communicate the importance of strict Constitutional interpretation, based on original sources rather than bad precedent.
It's pushing our principles that will win in the long run -- not just playing little political games with the dems.
"The kook lacks a judicial temperment. He is more a governor type than a judge."
You dare to call Roy Moore--a man with the backbone to fight the Marxists to the wall and to lose his job in the process-- a kook? It's time to ask who and what you call a hero. Leadership and courage don't always mean 'consensus building' -- sometimes it just comes down to saying RIGHT IS RIGHT and WRONG IS WRONG. We desperately need judges that abide by the Constitution and enforce the Ten Commandments. We don't need spineless enablers and criminal-coddlers and focus groups on the bench.
"Important principles may and must be inflexible." -- Abraham Lincoln
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits, who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight which knows not, victory nor defeat! -- Teddy Roosevelt
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
'There is no neutral ground in the universe--every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan' -- C.S. Lewis
Kennedy???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Not a bad idea at all. There is no reason to expend political capital in the fight for "Chief Justice."
YOU SAID..."It's pushing our principles that will win in the long run -- not just playing little political games with the dems."
Good post...exactly right!
I can't believe this is being discussed. Would the democrats be so kind? Hell no, they would nominate the biggest liberal on the court to be the Chief Justice.
If you want an idiot chief, might as well nominate Souter. If you want one that rules by whim, nominate Breyer. The only thing that Kennedy has going for him is that he is from Sacramento.
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.