Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to Nominate Roberts for Chief Justice
FoxNews ^ | Sept 5, 2005

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; johnroberts; judgeroberts; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541 next last
To: teletech
I'd prefer Justice Thomas to have been nominated, with Janice Rodgers Brown being nominated (along with Rogers) to fill the other vacant associate seat left by Justice O'Connor.

There are several reasons for this:

1) Thomas is younger than Scalia.
2) We know what we're getting out of him.
3 I'd love to see the Dems raise a fuss over Rogers Brown AND Thomas. That would go over like a lead balloon.
4) Thomas is not a divisive as Scalia.

Don't get me wrong; Scalia is the brightest member on the court. His opinions are of the soundest legal theory, and his court opinions are something to behold. With that said, he's getting up there in years.
521 posted on 09/05/2005 4:33:32 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

I don't know if this has been brought up before but what are the odds that Rev Jesse Jackson complains about Clarence Thomas being overlooked? Anyone? Anyone? :-)


522 posted on 09/05/2005 4:43:21 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

As long as Roberts behaves as a bona fide conservative judge, this is a good move. Scalia will probably be more effective as an Associate Judge and Roberts is almost sure to be confirmed. The real replaced for O'Connor now is significant because Roberts replaces a reliable conservative vote on the court.


523 posted on 09/05/2005 5:11:02 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Skylab
Rather, the Bush administration didn't want to have to go through the research process for each of them again and risk the opposition finding a bombshell when they have already done their homework on who they think they will nominate to replace O'Conner and think that's a safer bet.

And who can blame them?

524 posted on 09/05/2005 6:09:23 PM PDT by mbraynard (Mustache Rides - Five Cents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny

Rehnquist was first nominated and appointed to SCOTUS as a justice, and then was nominated to replace Warren Burger as CJ after having spent some number of years(?) on the court first as a justice.


525 posted on 09/05/2005 7:39:06 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

I don't think this was about 3 hearings vs two.

First, Scalia himself said it was rare to move up within the SC, because it caused animosity.

2nd, there are a lot of important cases coming up, and with a lot of them they will need O'Conner's vote to get a 5-4 decision (if she votes against, it will be 4-5, but for most of these a 4-4 is the wrong outcome because of the ruling of the lower courts).

3rd, the Dems would have been tempted to hold up Roberts for any number of reasons so as to start the session with 8 justices, O'Conner still there, but with no Rehnquist, meaning we would need both O'Conner AND Kennedy and still might end up with 4-4 ties. This move is the only way to get what could be a solid conservative vote to replace Rehnquist there in time for the session.

And since O'Conner offered to stay on until her replacement was confirmed, the court can start with 9 justices. And since Roberts is already into confirmation hearings, and since the "vetting" for the position is unchanged, it is reasonable to think he can get there before the first monday in October.

AND, if the dem's try to delay, Bush can point out that he went to the trouble of changing his nominations around to "help" ensure that the court had 9 justices (if he had left things as they were, he would have guaranteed only 8 justices would be there -- this way his argument that it was extremely important to have all 9 justices in place still applies).

And in the long term, Roberts was always the guy Bush wanted for Chief. I think the reason it took so long to make the nomination before was that Bush was waiting to find out what Rehnquist was going to do. He wanted Roberts for this position.

In no case do I see this as capitulation to the Democrats. They don't like Roberts, it's just that they can't find enough stuff to pin on him.


526 posted on 09/05/2005 8:09:23 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Actually, that is an article about somebody SAYING that Scalia wants the job. And they determined this by noting that the White House thinks he might not be a people person, but NOW he is out being chummy with everybody, like he is polishing up his image.

But I'm biased. As much as I like Scalia, he was never my pick for Chief. I would rather have seen Thomas if it was someone on the court.


527 posted on 09/05/2005 8:22:50 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
In no case do I see this as capitulation to the Democrats

The real issue is now the next pick--if it is Mel Martinez or Estrada or Clement or some other liberal in RINO make-up, the decay of America has been accelerated. If Bush pick Luttig, Jones or Brown, then there is a micron of hope.

528 posted on 09/05/2005 8:57:37 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

I totally agree with that. If the next pick isn't another strict constructionist, I'll be upset. I don't believe in "balance". I think we should have 9 GOOD judges, not 4 good judges, and 5 bad ones.


529 posted on 09/05/2005 9:40:40 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

Interesting. I don't know if that's true or not, but there was a lengthy, rather positive article on Rehnquist in the Chicago Tribune today that might provide some insight, if true, as to why.

One of the main themes of the article was Rehnquist's keen interest (and success) in orderly administration of the court's business. It said that when he thought a justice was taking too long to write an opinion, Rehnquist was known to mutter: "How hard can it be?!" The article went on to say that the object of Rehnquist's scorn in such cases was usually Souter.

For what it's worth.

LNGOP'r


530 posted on 09/05/2005 10:51:21 PM PDT by Libertarian Nationalist GOPr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian Nationalist GOPr
...Rehnquist's scorn in such cases was usually Souter.

Thanks for the info.

531 posted on 09/06/2005 3:31:43 AM PDT by Socratic (Liberal's motto: Capio ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Gumdrop
I cannot give the radical liberals on the Senate Judicial committee that much credit with trying to pull a Bre'r Rabbit on us

But who get's thrown into the Biar Patch???

532 posted on 09/06/2005 5:19:12 AM PDT by ExcursionGuy84 ("I will Declare the Beauty of The LORD.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Borges

As likely as ice in hell.


533 posted on 09/06/2005 5:31:40 AM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Deth

Hmmm. Interesting hypothesis.


534 posted on 09/06/2005 11:12:47 AM PDT by Liberatio (All you tots belong to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

"Hmmm....not sure what I think of this. I think I'd prefer Scalia be moved up. Should be interesting."

My thoughts exactly.


535 posted on 09/06/2005 11:22:27 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress

Thank you - much appreciated!


536 posted on 09/06/2005 12:22:22 PM PDT by Scarchin (www.classdismissedblog.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: College Repub

Roberts has been nominated as much for his confirmability as his conservativism. But the fact that Bush wanted him for Chief Justice all along is notable. He must know something that we don't.


537 posted on 09/06/2005 3:13:25 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Jeanine Pirro for Senate, Hillary Clinton for Weight Watchers Spokeswoman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I am beginning to think moving Roberts to Chief Justice was a big mistake. Roberts was already effectively on the court, we had essentially already won the battle for the O'Conner seat. Now, we have to refight that battle, and instead, we played our ace in the hole in the low stakes hand.


538 posted on 09/06/2005 7:13:36 PM PDT by crasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: crasher

Ya, it is easier to get a conservative to replace a conservative than of a moderate. But I think Bush really thought Roberts was the best man for the job, and so do I. The Pubbies have the votes to most of the names that are prominent through, except of course Janice Brown, and maybe Edith Jones, or Patricia Owen. Luttig of course would be a close and intense battle, but in the end he would probably get confirmed. The filibuster is effectively dead. The McCain deal turned out to be a good one.


539 posted on 09/06/2005 7:21:22 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Is that an admission that you were wrong about the deal? :)

Bush and you and I agree about Roberts. Standing right here, not knowing what Bush will do next, I guess I am just anxious. Do you think McConnell is the best brain for the job? How does he get around his on the record criticism of Roe v. Wade?

540 posted on 09/06/2005 7:26:01 PM PDT by crasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson