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 ...
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? :-)
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.
And who can blame them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thanks for the info.
But who get's thrown into the Biar Patch???
As likely as ice in hell.
Hmmm. Interesting hypothesis.
"Hmmm....not sure what I think of this. I think I'd prefer Scalia be moved up. Should be interesting."
My thoughts exactly.
Thank you - much appreciated!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.