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 ...
Obviously most presidents have nominated a CJ disagree with you since most have come from outside the court.
So, only 5 have been "elevated".
"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!"
Hmmm....was Rove there when Jim gave you these strong words? Alas, that makes me a bit nervous.
I think all conservatives at FR would say that we love and trust Inhoffe and Coburn, and by extension you....and we love and admire GWB, but don't believe him to be deeply and passionately conservative. As for Rove, well, you gotta admire the guy outright. And you gotta be glad when he's on YOUR side and when he is hosing liberals. But sometimes he hoses conservatives as well and that hurts. I don't think anyone mistakes Rove for a deeply principled conservative...we recognize him for what he is, a tactical genius who is with us often - but not always. Rove really believes in keeping majorities with the people he supports. He has a way of uncovering those majorities that is uncanny. But he is not really one to look for to LEAD on conservative issues where we are not yet in the majority. That takes a Churchill or Reagan or Thatcher type and I don't see anyone in the pipeline who has that type of courage and moral clarity (that is unless Coburn wants to make a jump to national...).
LOL Oh.... I don't know. Bush gets his share of bashing from the right and the left on a regular basis. IF one believes the opinion polls, the pubic is pretty fickle too. One minute approving and the next minute complaining. Hindsight usually makes it clearer.
If I'm not mistaken, the CJ plays a major role in deciding what cases will be heard. I also believe there are certain other honorary duties involved (something about being on the board of directors of one of the national museums or archives in DC).
Some people on this forum spend all theri time casting blame and dispersions towards President Bush.
President Bush is a top notch administrator, and by the speed with which this decision was made, I'd say it was all done well beforehand..........with Rehnquist's approval.
Now Sandra Day O'Connor will be replaced with a more conservative candidate, and we will be on our way to getting the SC back from the liberal activists.
Watch and see.
" the other side hates him so much, it must mean he's good, more than good actually"
I seem to recall there are a bunch of gays who are very grateful to Roberts and I'm sure they're just tickled pink to have someone who'll go to bat for them sitting at the top of SCOTUS.
Not that there's aaaaaanything wrong with that.
I think Scalia or Thomas would have been more than willing to do whatever it takes to become Chief Justice. However, by doing it this way, the President only has to fight two confirmation battles instead of three.
I'm still optimistic about Roberts.
spectre, unfortunately, Bush gets heat for what he eats for breakfast, how he ties his tie, what brand of shaving cream he uses, what color shoes he wears on a certain day, how he combs his hair......I could go on, but you get the point.
No. There are 7 members, with Stevens taking on the duties normally performed by the Chief Justice. When Roberts gets confirmed there will be eight. O'Connor is gone. Retired and gone.
They don't need a reason...........and in this case, they don't have one, but they bash away regardless.
I disregard them in the same way I disregard the left. They feel before they think.
Only 3 have been while as a sitting AJ. The other 2 were AJ then left the court.
See post # 200 for more information
John Rutledge had been an associate and left the court with just over 1 year of service, only to return as the 2nd Chief Justice.
Charles Evans Hughes had served almost six years on the bench as an associate (1910-16), only to leave the bench and return about 14 years later as Chief Justice.
Chief Justices Edward Douglass White, Harlan Fiske Stone, & William Rehnquist are the only 3 chiefs to ever be elevated directly from acting Associate Justice to the position of Chief Justice.
"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."
Probably folks don't want to go into too much detail on this issue on this thread, it is hashed out ad infinitum on others. But....I think the facts are that the firm worked on the case pro bono. Roberts' assistance was also pro bono and was of the nature of "Scalia would say this and that...". He gave them fine points on how to deal with the conservatives. The case won and the gay group publicly said that his advice was very very helpful. Neither Roberts nor the firm were paid for their work on the case, which is an awful case. Legal ethics does not require someone to do pro bono (or for that matter paid) work for a cause in which they really can't handle morally. Had he been paid, then we could all say, well, you know, that's just what lawyers do. But he wasn't. It was volunteer and that is what makes us nervous. It seems to be that he was trying to go along with the boys at the firm, trying to be a good team player and all that. Most of the time that is understandable. But in a case of such importance, Roberts should have politely declined to help his partners. Admittedly, it would take character and moral courage to take such a position.
But some of us think that a track record of character and moral courage should be mandatory for CJ, not icing on the cake. I can't help but thinking that if Scalia were a younger attorney and was asked to do pro bono work for such a case, he would not only decline, he would tear whoever asked him from limb to limb (rhetorically, of course...).
At any rate. Not to belabor the point...but that's sort of the concern.
Amen, Ohio!!
Reading between the lines of your post has made me smile...even chuckle.
I guess I am willing to support Bush...less critically than at some times in the past years.
No she is not. Roberts being nominate for CJ means her seat has not been filled. She stays in place till it is.
You obviously didn't a get a clue from what I wrote but somehow I am not surprised.
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.