Posted on 09/05/2005 4:39:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
Newsreaders on FoxNews just said a 'Senior administration spokesman' has said Bush plans to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice position.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Tell that to Ann. And none of us have any idea really what this guy is like except that there is a lot of confusion about what he stands for. This is not a decision to take likely. You people who just keep your head up in the clouds and don't demand proof of character for a man you are about to put into a high position have been wrong a lot more than once. Well we can't afford to play a lottery for the SCJ.
The fact is, if Roberts is a sleeper, he's been working for a lot of Republicans for a long time undercover. He's a fine judge and will probably be much more like Rehnquist than Scalia or Thomas.
The only problem I have with Roberts is that he seems to have a stare decisis fetish. Even during his work with the Reagan administration, he was eager to search for "settled law" to decide things. But on that score, he'll be no worse than Rehnquist.
If he/she is in the majority opinion.
When you deal with this White House always look for something that seems out of sync and you will will understand.
The new Chief Justice will make all of us proud and you can take that to the bank.
I bet this made Ann Coulter real happy! LOL!
The CJ is very rarely chosen from the sitting judges. Therefore, they historically have almost never been 'proven' SC judges.Rehnquist is the exception, not the rule.
No pits here.
Bush has pleased me wiht some of his outside the box thinking on several fronts. None of them, however, have involved getting anything through the RINO-controlled Senate.
The RINO-controlled Senate was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be, the largest source of problems for the conservative agenda.
Suits me!
LOL!!! He always starts out everything with a Hillary story or joke as well. As soon as he gave us the background and said the vetting had been going on for a year and he was very happy, I knew we were okay. Then when he talked about Coulter and Michael Reagan, I saw the face of Karl Rove and couldn't quit chuckling!
Not only is it not a requirement, it is rarely done.
"Rehnquist is the exception, not the rule."
And interestingly enough Rehnquist was an exception...He was Eceptional. Just goes to show how well it worked out doing it that way. Since there is a good judge to move up then why not do it?
Would someone explain to me what the CJ does? What power does he yield (above and beyond regular SCJs)?
You want to bet?? The liberals are going to trash whoever he nominates and that includes Janice Rogers Brown.
When my one Senator is chuckling and my other Senator site on Judiciary and talks about what a fine choice Roberts will be, I have total confidence. When he was asked about the conservative commentators, he made comments which to paraphrase said some were carrying the water and what you read was for consumption of the liberals. It worked too if you asked me.
No it is actually the other way around. Most have come from outside the court.
You obviously didn't a get a clue from what I wrote but somehow I am not surprised.
No argument from me on FR and debating. I just don't want us to embrace defeat before more is known.
You may be right on Roberts pro bono work but what I read did not say it happened that way. In a law firm, asked to respond with help to an assiciates case, he provided it. Not the same as saying he supports the homosexual agenda.
"The Senate as it is presently constituted will not confirm a judge who is committed to restoring the Constitution, you are 100% correct about that."
False. We have 55 republican senators, 5 RINOs can vote against us and we will still win. And one or two Red state Democrats will vote for a Janice Brown or Estrada. No red state Republican senator is going to kill their careers -and go against the President - just to keep another Scalia off the bench.
>>The CJ decides who writes the decisions.<<
Depends upon the case. In a 7-2 vote, one of the ones on the bottom obviously isn't going to write the Court's opinion.
Every Justice likely drafts an opinion, and they decide among themselves -- along voting lines -- which one to "sign on to." Often there are issues that want to include, so they write separately. These are called concurrances (sp?) if they support the opinion or judgment of the court. They are separate dissents if they don't. Even those are shopped around looking for other justices to sign onto.
So, you might have a 5-4 opinion of the court, ruled on, for example, by Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquest, O'Conner, and Kennedy. If this were a school prayer case, for example, Scalia might write a concurrance that is joined by Thomas saying that even the opinion of the court -- which he signed on to -- is still a too restrictive view of the Establishment Clause.
Or, in a capital punishment case, Marshall would almost always dissent separately saying capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment -- a view not held even by the other 1-3 dissenters on the case.
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.