Bush to nominate Roberts as Chief Justice

[John Ho]

According to CNN. It's amazing how much luck is involved in becoming Chief Justice. You don't work your way up you just happen to be the pick when the Chief dies.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
According to CNN. It's amazing how much luck is involved in becoming Chief Justice. You don't work your way up you just happen to be the pick when the Chief dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. It means you are capable of being the CJ when picked. If Roberts were just run of the mill, he would have been left as the associate nominee. This means that the person Bush wants (and he already has picked privately) is not suitable to be CJ.

Bush likely has a woman or minority that he is planning to put on the bench, but didn't want that person to be CJ.

[John Ho]

I was referring not only to Roberts but the high % of Chief Justices that were appointed from outside the court. One would think it makes more sense to promote from within due to the experience factor.

[BluffTHIS!]

Although he doesn't have experience on that court yet, it is management and consensus building skills that make a good chief justice, and an outsider is just as likely to have those as a sitting justice. But there is a political angle too. Often when a decision is going to go against the way the chief justice would vote, he can change his vote to side with the majority. That way as the senior justice in the majority he gets to choose who writes the majority opinion and thus often can tone down or limit its scope. If he doesn't do this, then a more liberal justice who is the senior one among the majority gets to decide who writes the opinion, although of course all justices can write their own dissenting or concurring opinions.

[El Barto]

Sitting justices often feud with each other.

When the CJ died during the Truman Presidency, two sitting justices conducted a battle to get elevated to CJ: Jackson (who had been promised promotion by FDR) and Black (the darling of New Dealers).

Truman did the smart thing and appointed an outsider.

[whiskeytown]

this really surprises me....

I'd have thought that a president of ANY party would promote one of his favorites within the high court like Clarence Thomas over one of his new nomimees.

For one, you have a better established idea of your other 8 justices and can easily pick the most benefical one whereas you're still rolling the dice a bit with a new apointee.

But mostly, I thought it was ettique - I'd think it'd piss the other justices off to find out some new runt was their boss.

RB

[El Barto]

Age is a big issue.

If you are a conservative, do you want to nominate a 69 year old Scalia? You don't know who will be President when he dies or has to retire for health reasons.

Nominate an old guy and you may get a liberal Chief Justice 20 years down the road. Nominate a young guy, and you can wait 40 years before his unknown replacement comes on board.

[webmonarch]

Personally, I prefer this over Thomas or Scalia. Scalia would have been annoying, but reasonable, Thomas would have been a joke. Roberts is as good as anything, in my mind.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I prefer this over Thomas or Scalia. Scalia would have been annoying, but reasonable, Thomas would have been a joke. Roberts is as good as anything, in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your message has been saved. Your quote will be thrown back in your face at the appropriate time and place. (Did you let one of your conservative friends sit down at your computer?)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas would have been a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you even name one case he voted on and intelligently discuss his vote on it?

natedogg

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you even name one case he voted on and intelligently discuss his vote on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Grutter v. Bollinger, and other affirmative action cases.

Thomas is a black judge who has an extremely poor understanding of American racial history. He is strongly against Affirmative Action, which is questionable in a moral sense, but also in a traditional legal sense of being compensated for legal wrongs.

More generally, Thomas is the least objectively thinking judge on the court and his positions on a case are so predictable that it is amazing that he even shows up at times. This is not what the CJ should be doing.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
Your message has been saved. Your quote will be thrown back in your face at the appropriate time and place. (Did you let one of your conservative friends sit down at your computer?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. If you're a lefty, however, this is as good as anything that could have happened. With Thomas and Scalia, you know damn well what you're going to get. With Roberts, you don't, and as BigBait has mentioned, you have a better chance of a lifeong moderate with Roberts than with the others.

I am fully prepared to eat crow if I am wrong.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

Grutter v. Bollinger, and other affirmative action cases.

Thomas is a black judge who has an extremely poor understanding of American racial history. He is strongly against Affirmative Action, which is questionable in a moral sense, but also in a traditional legal sense of being compensated for legal wrongs.

More generally, Thomas is the least objectively thinking judge on the court and his positions on a case are so predictable that it is amazing that he even shows up at times. This is not what the CJ should be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he insisted on interpreting the constitution as written rather than follow emotion and race, believing that it is the place of Congress to make legislation rather than judges. What a dope!

[andyfox]

It is interesting that Thomas oppened his opinion citing something that Frederick Douglass wrote in 1865:

"Like Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators."

Indeed, Thomas seems to have one of the great minds of 1865.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you even name one case he voted on and intelligently discuss his vote on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Grutter v. Bollinger, and other affirmative action cases.

Thomas is a black judge who has an extremely poor understanding of American racial history. He is strongly against Affirmative Action, which is questionable in a moral sense, but also in a traditional legal sense of being compensated for legal wrongs.


[/ QUOTE ]}

Good lord, I didn't realize that people actually still support racial preferences.


[ QUOTE ]
More generally, Thomas is the least objectively thinking judge on the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Consistency does *not* mean lack of thinking objectively. Thomas is consistent, so consistent that he has recently ruled on certain matters counter to the typical conservative position yet in line with his consistent approach to constitutional law. Namely Raich and Kelo. There are plenty more.

It's almost as if you read some pamphlet on campus about affirmative action that mentioned Thomas and then stopped there.

natedogg

[John Ho]

Very little real content there. Mostly name calling.

If you're surprised that people still support affirmative action you aren't very well educated just well indoctrinated.

[James Boston]

Wasn't Warren Burger appointed CJ without having been on the court?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't Warren Burger appointed CJ without having been on the court?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an uncommon practice at all.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
So he insisted on interpreting the constitution as written rather than follow emotion and race, believing that it is the place of Congress to make legislation rather than judges. What a dope!

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone before him had done the same thing he would be working in a cotton field in Georgia instead of serving on the Supreme Court. Do you see why?

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a graduate of a Top 20 law school, have worked in the US Senate (for a Republican Senator), The Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. of Justice, and I've written several published works.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'll put my qualifications up against anyone, and most certainly you. Believe that.

[ QUOTE ]
It's almost as if you read some pamphlet on campus about affirmative action that mentioned Thomas and then stopped there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this pamphlet was a three year law degree and about 500 cases read, then you're absolutely right.

Seriously, save the flaming. It makes you look silly.