Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: SC Justice Nomination  (Read 1299 times)

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
SC Justice Nomination
« on: September 07, 2005, 03:52:36 PM »
What are everyone's thoughts of President Bush's recent statement nominating Roberts not only as a new justice but as the Chief Justice?

Sure Roberts clerked for Renquist but what about the other justices?

I think that the court would be exciting with Scalia or Thomas as Chief Justice.

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2005, 04:02:40 PM »
Yeah, but if he elevated a sitting Justice, he would have three confirmation hearings to go through instead of two.  Democrats in the Senate probably wouldn't be able to stop the elevation if they opposed it (however imprudently, in my opinion), but they could certainly slow things down, force the administration to expend more resources than it would like, etc.  It would be, and will be, marginally easier for them to go through only two confirmation hearings.  It will still take quite a bit of resources and political capital to pull it off as it is.  If I were Justice O'Connor I would keep doing my homework; I just don't foresee her being able to effectively retire anytime soon.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

squarre

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2005, 05:24:30 PM »
It is very rare for a sitting justice to be elevated to chief justice.  I believe there have only been 3, of course 1 of those was Rehnquist.

Based on what I have heard he didn't want to elevate Thomas because he did not want the mess that occurred with his nomination to be revisited. 

He did not elevate Scalia because he really isn't viewed as a unifying presence.  His dissents often times call the other members stupid.

Since these were the only 2 who could have been possibly nominated from within (Kennedy was not really an option) he decided to go outside.

lipper

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2005, 10:26:28 PM »
also if u nominate from sitting justices, then all of a sudden you have almost a competition brewing between the justices to see who will be chief next. that will only create hostility and drama. also, justices may not decide cases with how they think it should be, and would decide it how the president would like it, thus getting "good" with the pres.
check the footnotes ya'll

ibisgolfer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2005, 12:55:14 AM »
should have gone to the best man.  scalia was clearly the best candidate that fit within Bush's phil. outlook.  If I were Scalia i would resign.  I mean seriously, he has carved out the niche as the most identifiable justice on the court through his acerbic opinions, what does he have left to do.  He isn't going to usher in a Scalia era like a Warren or Burger.  I would leave.  A smart guy like him, must be thinking what is he doing in a place like that.  Nothing against Roberts, but Scalia was a better COJ pick.  he passed the senate 99-0.  What are they going to do, admit they were all wrong.  seriously.  the blog how appealing has a link about how scalia is said to be arrogant and bored with his work on the court.  could we have a resignation brewing?  my blog has covered this also.

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2005, 10:28:08 AM »
It is very rare for a sitting justice to be elevated to chief justice.  I believe there have only been 3, of course 1 of those was Rehnquist.


I didn't know that.  I've always thought that the Chief Justice was nominated from one of the current justices.  Next week's hearings should be interesting.

I guess Roberts for Rehnquist is a wash.  I've heard that Roberts is more "open minded" than Rehnquist. 

The big question is who will Bush nominate to replace O'Connor.

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2005, 11:40:21 AM »
Historically, it has been that, more often than not a new CJ is brought in from outside the court, for various reasons.  Maybe the President didn't like any of the sitting justices (e.g. Andrew Jackson naming Roger Taney) or maybe he owed somebody big political favors (e.g. Ike Eisenhower naming Earl Warren), or maybe he just didn't think any of the sitting justices he wanted were likely to pass, or if they did pass they would take too much time and effort to do so (imo, the current situation).

I concur with your other points, but I'm not sure how much more "open-minded" Roberts is likely to be.  I think it will depend on the issue and his own idiosyncracies.  One of my profs who was classmates with him reported that he turned "scarily conservative" after finishing up his clerkship with Rehnquist, however.  Either way, who knows?  :-\
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

rezipsa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2005, 12:00:31 PM »
Historically, it has been that, more often than not a new CJ is brought in from outside the court, for various reasons.  Maybe the President didn't like any of the sitting justices (e.g. Andrew Jackson naming Roger Taney) or maybe he owed somebody big political favors (e.g. Ike Eisenhower naming Earl Warren), or maybe he just didn't think any of the sitting justices he wanted were likely to pass, or if they did pass they would take too much time and effort to do so (imo, the current situation).

I concur with your other points, but I'm not sure how much more "open-minded" Roberts is likely to be.  I think it will depend on the issue and his own idiosyncracies.  One of my profs who was classmates with him reported that he turned "scarily conservative" after finishing up his clerkship with Rehnquist, however.  Either way, who knows?  :-\
Nominating an outside CJ is news to me but it makes sense.  I still think it would be fun to have Thomas or Scalia as CJ.  Sure they will have their share of opinions, but as CJ they may have more opinions.  Think of the all the fun opinions that would come out of the court (especially with Scalia).  I can see it now, Scalia using a quote from a rap song to "dis" a fellow justice. "...you're blind, baby...(Public Enemy)"

I heard the same thing about Roberts after he clerked with Rehnquist.  Rehnquist was known to "shape" his clerks into conservatives.

Issues like abortion will be dependent on the O'Connor replacement.  She was the swing vote for several controversial opinions.  Having another conservative to replace O'Connor will change the Court.  The question will be is how much.

BigPimpinBU

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2005, 12:23:13 AM »
Scalia cannot be CJ, if only because the anticipation of grilling him during the hearings will give Harry Reid, et al, massive heart attacks (which is probably not the worst thing that can happen, come to think of it).

Mary

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: SC Justice Nomination
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2005, 11:27:17 PM »
I just wish Bush didn't have to the nominating again. :-\

What are everyone's thoughts of President Bush's recent statement nominating Roberts not only as a new justice but as the Chief Justice?

Sure Roberts clerked for Renquist but what about the other justices?

I think that the court would be exciting with Scalia or Thomas as Chief Justice.