http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html
:no2:
Great. Another supreme court nominee battle.
It could potentially be three battles total. If Dubya nominates Scalia like I heard he might a few years ago, then that would mean a battle for Chief Justice, Roberts, and the potential open Scalia seat. If Dubya follows the more common route of naming a completely new guy to Chief Justice, then we avoid that.
Suddenly, though, I see the Democrats focusing their energy on Chief Justice rather than Roberts (unless Roberts is named the CJ nominee).
I admire the guy for wanting to work till he died, basically, and for being mentally sharp enough to do so even as his health failed.
Well, now there’s two Supreme Court spots to be filled. Whatever’s going to happen in regards to this, it won’t be boring.
RIP Chief Justice Rhenquist.
That’s a good point about the possible third vacancy, I hadn’t thought of that. I think that Scalia or Kennedy would be the best choices for CJ though since they have the most experience ( I would personally favor Kennedy though since he is fairly moderate and Scalia has some whack views at times). Bush is getting lucky getting to appoint so many people and have such a big impact on the court. This is quite a shock though about Rehnquist though. Although, this could possibly give the Democrats a little more lead way in choosing since there are two spots open for sure and can maybe do some dealing to confirm one the Republicans want in exchange for a less conservative guy.
Willian Rehnquist, I hardly knew yee. So I’ll shut up now.
The problem with Scalia is that he’s nearing 70 years old, which would be old for a Chief Justice - he’d have only about 10 years or less. Most conservatives seem to want Clarence Thomas(about 60 years old), appointed to the job. The Congressional leader of the Democrats, Harry Reid, said he would not support Thomas because he believes Thomas to be incompetent and unqualified for the job, but that he would support Scalia. That may be the position of most Democratic Congressmen.
Rehnquist’s death may actually help Bush out, because it can let him appoint a more conservative judge in Rehnquist’s place, as well as the more moderate Roberts. This could appease his base, while at the same time not scaring moderate Americans.
My only question is what does the CJ get to do that the other justices can’t, besides presiding over impeachment and swearing in the President? Unless they get first dibs on majority opinions or something, I don’t see why it matters who’s CJ.
But either way this is bad news. Rehnquist was pretty conservative but he moderated slightly towards the end. We’re probably going to get someone in the Thomas/Scalia mode with this spot.
From my understanding, the CJ also assigns who writes the majority opinion. Like, instead of being just first dibs, he gets to assign it.
Plus, the CJ gets to wear a black robe with gold stripes.
Blast?
This isn’t gonna be good.
I wake up to this? ARGH.
Did you read the “Who will be Chief Justice?” section as well? Someone suggested the possibility of Bush asking O’Connor to remain and be CJ, but I don’t think that’s likely.
Who knows what will happen?
Batten down your hatches, and prepare for bullshit.
O’Connor’s husband is dying. I don’t think she’ll stay.
The court works based on seniority where they debate a case in order of seniority from the lowest to the highest. The CJ also handles how cases flow in court. The CJ doesn’t always assign who writes the opinion, he/she only does that if he/she is with the majority, otherwise it goes to the next senior member. The biggest thing is just that the CJ affects the attitude of the court and how it runs. One CJ (I’m forgetting his name right now) who created had a hard time running the court and getting the Justices to work together.
Vicki, there was talk about that when she first announced her retirement (since Rehnquist getting off the court soon was pretty immenent), but she never really wanted to do it. I doubt that she would take it now.
Yeah, I know. I was saying that the possibility of Bush asking had been mentioned in the press.
My own opinion is that’s a moot point - she’s retiring because her husband has Alzheimer’s, and I really doubt she’d change her mind on her decision.
Bush has nominated Justice Roberts for Chief Justice:
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Just 50 years old, Roberts could shape the court for decades to come.
The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court’s top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.
This doesn’t seem that surprising. Roberts is young and acceptable to most people.
Here’s the link to the rest of the article:
I just can’t help but cringe when I think that whoever is temporarily taking over Renquist’s duties, the justice with most seniority, is the most liberal member of the court, but he was actually conservative at the time he was put in place. I think this just puts into perspective how the supreme court is just going further and further to the right and how having Bush put 2 judges disturbs me greatly.