[Congressman Billybob]

When anyone is nominated directly as Chief Justice, rather than being an Associate Justice first, there is only one Senate hearing. However, the rare few who have been nominated directly as Chief have usually held some substantial position prior to that.

Think William Howard Taft, who was named Chief after he had served as President of the US. Judge Roberts doesn't have the horsepower to be named directly as Chief. So my answer to your question is purely theoretical. IF Bush decided to nominate Roberts for Chief, he would withdraw the current nomination as Associate, and replace it with one for Chief. Then, the hearings would proceed as scheduled.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Tide of Lies Swamps NY Times: Employees Riot and Steal Office Supplies"

[alancarp]

Agreed, and the list of those who might be promoted straight to the top job is exceedingly short for the reasons you suggest. The only names coming to mind at the moment are Olson (possible), Starr (not possible), and Bork (monumentally impossible, but wouldn't you like to see it happen!).

And with that, I bid the Rehnquist family my best regards and thanks for lending American such a fine man. Godd night, all.

[msnimje]

Judge Roberts doesn't have the horsepower to be named directly as Chief.

Thank you for the information. I didn't think he would but have heard it floated around tonight so it got me curious about the process.

Who do you think the new Chief will be? Judge Bork? Carl Rove? Laura Bush? Hehehehehe

[AliVeritas]

Congressman, can a few of us get together and do a thread of ops links on a certain subject you have been working on?
Will freepmail.