[jdm]

Fair enough. But why wouldn't the sentence, then, instead, read:

"... the conservative legal icon said that the High Court needed someone who had never served as a judge to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor."

That would be more accurate, IMO. After all, Miers is not going to be Chief Justice, as was Rehnquist.

[ContraryMary]

Fair enough. But why wouldn't the sentence, then, instead, read:

"... the conservative legal icon said that the High Court needed someone who had never served as a judge to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor."

That would be more accurate, IMO. After all, Miers is not going to be Chief Justice, as was Rehnquist.

You're misreading it. He's referring to the fact that Rehnquist was the last sitting member of the Court to come to the Court without a prior judicial background; he's not talking about replacing an individual justice.

[ThePythonicCow]

But why wouldn't the sentence, then, instead, read:
... to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor."

Because he is referring to someone will take the place of Reinquist in his role as someone who wasn't a judge before, not in his role as Chief Justice.

[alnick]

"... the conservative legal icon said that the High Court needed someone who had never served as a judge to take the place of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O'Connor."

Because he's not talking about Roberts replacing Renquist as CJ. He's talking about Miers replacing Renquist as a justice who came to the Court with no prior judicial experience.

Context.