Why would Bush make Roberts the chief justice nominee and risk losing him completely when he could have taken an already established member, such as Thomas and avoided the huge hub-bub that will ensue?
It would require a separate confirmation process. Better that they consolidate their fights.
The bottom line is, judicial filibusters are going to be voted out this year. No way around it. Several Democrats have proven that they cannot take a rational approach to the confirmation process.
______________________________ It's stay away from Malaysia for fear of vampires year!
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies 'something not desirable'." -- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
High Post Count = Manliness and Importance
#2 Most Friendly Guy, Connoisseur of All Things Fine, Elitist Ass, and One of the Two Biggest Douchebags in the Forums
Originally posted by Chicago: I know that most CJs are new appointees, but does making someone captain of the team when they haven't started before seem stupid to anyone else?
Actually, according to the Law, He could appoint a complete outsider to be Chief Justice.....if it was me, I'd appoint Bork and sit back and watch the fun.
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
Originally posted by rbihari: Actually, according to the Law, He could appoint a complete outsider to be Chief Justice.....if it was me, I'd appoint Bork and sit back and watch the fun.
Yea, I understand the law in the situation, but it comes off as a bit stupid to me. The highest court in the land, wouldn't you want someone who has spent some time on it to be the one to head it up?
"Don't like it too much, they're more expensive than drugs."
Posts: 520 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: September 19, 2004
Originally posted by Chicago: Yea, I understand the law in the situation, but it comes off as a bit stupid to me. The highest court in the land, wouldn't you want someone who has spent some time on it to be the one to head it up?
Ummm...I don't believe we vote in Senators, Congressmen, and certainly not Presidents who have spent any time in their position....at least not the first time.
There are many many people qualified to sit on the Bench.....but like many things in life.....competence is not always a consideration (this IS the Government you know).
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
Originally posted by Chicago: I know that most CJs are new appointees, but does making someone captain of the team when they haven't started before seem stupid to anyone else?
Actually, according to the Law, He could appoint a complete outsider to be Chief Justice.....if it was me, I'd appoint Bork and sit back and watch the fun.
That's exactly what I thought!! That would be so much fun.
The silliest demand is that they want to know who the O'connor appointee will be prior to confriming Roberts.
What does that have to do with a nominees ability? They are supposed to confirm and consent a nominee not vet the court makeup.
Posts: 644 | Location: Tucson, AZ | Registered: August 12, 2002
Don't forget, right now, Justice O'Connor is still a member of the court - she only announced her intention to retire whenever a successor could be named and confirmed. There's some media speculation today she may decide to stay on, at least for a while.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 3961 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Originally posted by Jack White: Don't forget, right now, Justice O'Connor is still a member of the court - she only announced her intention to retire whenever a successor could be named and confirmed. There's some media speculation today she may decide to stay on, at least for a while.
I haven't followed everything on this, but if she'd only announced her intention to resign at some time in the future I wouldn't think the steps to confirm Roberts (I mean those taken prior to Rehnquist's death) would've taken place.
Saul D.B.C. Member #0002 B.A.S.E. #0015 <(0)> B.A.S.E. Minister of Niggling Details.
Originally posted by Chicago: I know that most CJs are new appointees, but does making someone captain of the team when they haven't started before seem stupid to anyone else?
That's always been my opinion, but then, I've never had any desire to be in politics.
Saul D.B.C. Member #0002 B.A.S.E. #0015 <(0)> B.A.S.E. Minister of Niggling Details.
As I understand it, she stated her resignation would become effective upon the confirmation of her successor, thereby necessitating the whole process.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 3961 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
My understanding is that O'Connor has already announced her resignation, which has been accepted, and that she will wait until the successor gets approved before leaving.
There are already enough votes and a filibuster escape hatch for Roberts to be approved, so nominating him in the Chief Justice slot at his tender young age is a good strategy. I actually do not believe that most Democrats (this side of Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi and Feinstein) have a problem with Roberts.
It sure seems that there would be more fear about the unknown candidate than they have been able to conjure up with the known entity.
Posts: 818 | Location: Central New Jersey | Registered: March 15, 2005
I want to make a comment on your comment that Democrats have not being rational on the confirmaiton vote issue.
The Republican party has engaged in very similar blocking strategies over the years. The only real difference is that they usually hold control of the Judiciary Committee. As such, the strategy starts much earlier in the process. Lets take a look at Clinton's presidency.
The method back in those days was to simply deny a hearing in the J.C. No hearing meant there would never even be a J.C. The nominee was SOL. This was the fate of many of Clinton's appointments. This was the case even if the individual at issue had already received the "well-qualified" rating from the ABA. So, the Republicans don't exactly have the high ground they claim on this issue.
Anyway, I wanted to highlight that both sides engage in nomination tactics beyond up and down voting and that such tactics are not exactly new to the Senate nor just Democrat in origin. Personally, I think that people on both sides should use all the power they have if they feel that someone isn't a good fit.
Regards,
JT
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Curador,
------------------------------
Posts: 1425 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: March 11, 2003
