Some of you may remember the thread I started two months ago after Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court [url]. Since then, there
has been quite a bit of discussion about her successor and the future makeup of
the court.
Congress went into recess at the beginning of August after the nomination of
John Roberts to fill Justice O'Connor's seat, and hearings in Senate Judiciary
were scheduled to begin after Congress reconvenes on Tuesday. Now however,
there's a new twist to the nomination battle, because just a couple hours ago,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away at his home in Virginia.
What does this turn of events portend for the future of the court and in the
battle that is poised to begin in the halls of the Senate? Who do you think
will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
ahh you beat me too it. I was just gonna start a thread on this. boo you
shin.
Anyways, with the passing of the Chief Justice, President Bush's second
opportunity to shape the court will push the Supreme Court to ever more bitter
political antagonism across the aisle. Let the real Supreme Court battle begin, John Roberts was just a skirmish
that hasn't even started compared to this. I'm very must anticipating the coming
weeks on Capitol Hill. Too bad shin you're back at Cornell.
Personally, I think President Bush's most likely choice to replace Chief Justice
Rehnquist will be either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, the staunch keepers
of Court conservatism. These two justices see very likely choices to
me.
Oh boy, will this be some interesting judiciary jostling.
Yeah, I just saw that myself! What a suprise. ...The news article I read said
he upheld something to do with the 10 Commandments in Texas, so I'm going to
have to check that out.
....This is everything the Democratic party and Liberals feared. Not only will
Bush select two or more Supreme Court justices, but will also be selecting a
Cheif Justice. O.O
well, the demoncrats did not really lose that much for justice Rehnquist passing
away
In fact, they are sitting pretty, I think. Rehnquist is a conservative anyway so
it is expected that his successor to be holding the same ideology as him.
However, with Bush now has to come up with another name for the Supreme court,
the demoncrats have more rooms to manuever now if they ever decide to stage
against Roberts nomination
hidden's got a good point. The Democrats would have lost more if another
"swing" Justice's seat opened up. Rehnquist's seat stays with the
conservatives, but it does give the Democrats more room to oppose Roberts.
Something like a "we'll let you nominate a conservative to replace the
conservative rehnquist but we'll do our best to keep Roberts out of the swing
seat of Justice O'Connor."
And hey, the little club that was discussing the issue in shinsengumi's first
Supreme Court thread is coming back for this one!!
Anyone care to join if I start something like a Political Nut group?? =P Or if
anyone already has such a group, let me know!! hehe
well consider Bush's current political capital, he couldn't afford to do
anything over the top, the handling of the gulf crisis, Iraq, and the gas price
are putting him in a no win situation. He will pick someone like Roberts to the
position, but I think he will appoint Thomas or one of the other conservative as
the chief justice. For the liberals, this is a bullet that they have to bite. I
just hope they pick someone that is a judicial conservative, because they are
the ones that try to refrain from rewriting the past supreme court decision.
Quote by Mordinwell consider Bush's
current political capital, he couldn't afford to do anything over the top, the
handling of the gulf crisis, Iraq, and the gas price are putting him in a no win
situation. He will pick someone like Roberts to the position, but I think he
will appoint Thomas or one of the other conservative as the chief justice. For
the liberals, this is a bullet that they have to bite. I just hope they pick
someone that is a judicial conservative, because they are the ones that try to
refrain from rewriting the past supreme court decision.
Well, since Bush is in his second term, he really doesn't have to care all that
much about liberal opinion. Not like he has to worry about being re-elected.
He's definitely going to appoint a conservative judge.
Does anyone else find it a little sad that nobody's talking about the guy that
just died, but rather the guy that's going to replace him?
well, if you have not heard, Bush has appointed John Roberts, who has yet to be
confirmed, to be the new chief of justice
I do not know what your guys view on this is, but to me, this is fairly
irresponsible
I'm quite surprised that President Bush would nominate Roberts as the Chief
Justice. He has absolutely no experience on the bench, and thus I feel that he
is not qualified for the position of Chief Justice. An associate justice,
maybe/yes, but definitely not Chief Justice. I strongly feel that the position
of Chief Justice demands not only all the qualifications of any associate
justice, but years of experience with innumerable cases in order to effectively
lead the Court into the coming years, especially with some of the biggest issues
of our time arising to the Court.
I truly feel that this is a wrong choice and that President Bush should have
nominated a present associate Justice to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Quote by hiddensnakehandswell,
if you have not heard, Bush has appointed John Roberts, who has yet to be
confirmed, to be the new chief of justice I do not know what your guys view on
this is, but to me, this is fairly irresponsible
After
significant discussion with a number of friends, we narrowed the possible list
of nominees for the position of Chief Justice down to two: Roberts and Scalia.
As Scalia had his experience and his record to back him up, while Roberts
remained a wild card, we decided that Scalia was the likely candidate.
Oh how wrong we were.
It's not irresponsible for the President to nominate John Roberts as Chief
Justice. What this means is that Roberts is no longer the one nominated to fill
Associate Justice O'Connor's seat and that someone else will be nominated for
that position. This also means that Justice O'Connor may not retire quite yet,
as she stated that she would serve until a replacement for her was selected,
which means that the eight-justice scenario may not come to pass at all. This
is good because the possibility of tied decisions in the court is something to
be avoided if at all possible.
This is not the first time people have been nominated straight to the top
without having first being an associate justice. William Howard Taft, for
example, was named Chief Justice in 1921 without having any prior court
experience. Roberts, on the other hand, has served as an appellate court
justice and he clerked for
Rehnquist.
I'm not saying I like this turn of events, as I do have my doubts, but I have to
admit that I am surprised, and so I'm going to be looking into it some more.
Besides, now the guessing game for the new replacement for Justice O'Connor is
open again!
Quote by shinsengumiBesides, now the
guessing game for the new replacement for Justice O'Connor is open
again!
So let's revive the other thread!!!!! =P
Well, if Roberts replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor stays
for the time being, the overal liberal/conservative make up of the court would
not change drastically, i.e. hidden's last point that the democrats didn't lose
too much in this second court opening.
Still, I truly feel that experience is the most important qualification for the
position of Chief Justice.
i actually thought Justice Scalia would be the likely choice to replace Justice
Rehnquist as well. So I'm wrong once again.
Anyways, let's all pick names out of a hat now for the oh-so-crucial swing seat
replacement candidate!!!
Well, one thing that we could possibly get from Bush appointing Roberts as the
chief justice is that he feels that Roberts would most likely not be approved
for the swing vote due to his conservative ideology, or undergoing very long
hearings. It also feels that Bush is in a hurry to appoint another judge to the
court. He seems to be comfortable enough that Roberts will continue the
leadership of Rehnquist as the a vocal voice of conservatism.
But really, the democrats did not lose at all in this battle, I am quite
surprised by the turn of events
Well, one thing is for certain, George W. Bush is going to have a much larger
impact on this country than anyone thought when he was first elected. That
being said, I don't think we are sure to have a conservative court for the next
20 years as some people have complained/celebrated. It's very hard to guess how
someone will vote a decade into the future. Let's not forget that it was George
W. Bush's own father who appointed Souter and he is one of the most liberal
judges on the court.
Some of you may remember the thread I started two months ago after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court [url]. Since then, there has been quite a bit of discussion about her successor and the future makeup of the court.
Congress went into recess at the beginning of August after the nomination of John Roberts to fill Justice O'Connor's seat, and hearings in Senate Judiciary were scheduled to begin after Congress reconvenes on Tuesday. Now however, there's a new twist to the nomination battle, because just a couple hours ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away at his home in Virginia.
What does this turn of events portend for the future of the court and in the battle that is poised to begin in the halls of the Senate? Who do you think will be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/politics/wire-rehnquist.html
ahh you beat me too it. I was just gonna start a thread on this. boo you shin.
Anyways, with the passing of the Chief Justice, President Bush's second opportunity to shape the court will push the Supreme Court to ever more bitter political antagonism across the aisle. Let the real Supreme Court battle begin, John Roberts was just a skirmish that hasn't even started compared to this. I'm very must anticipating the coming weeks on Capitol Hill. Too bad shin you're back at Cornell.
Personally, I think President Bush's most likely choice to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist will be either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, the staunch keepers of Court conservatism. These two justices see very likely choices to me.
Oh boy, will this be some interesting judiciary jostling.
Yeah, you beat me to it too.
Well, I'm not going to go into some type of debate or something, but I think it sucks that there's going to be a second nominee. @_@;
Cool, I'll check the link out.
Yeah, I just saw that myself! What a suprise. ...The news article I read said he upheld something to do with the 10 Commandments in Texas, so I'm going to have to check that out.
....This is everything the Democratic party and Liberals feared. Not only will Bush select two or more Supreme Court justices, but will also be selecting a Cheif Justice. O.O
well, the demoncrats did not really lose that much for justice Rehnquist passing away
In fact, they are sitting pretty, I think. Rehnquist is a conservative anyway so it is expected that his successor to be holding the same ideology as him. However, with Bush now has to come up with another name for the Supreme court, the demoncrats have more rooms to manuever now if they ever decide to stage against Roberts nomination
hidden's got a good point. The Democrats would have lost more if another "swing" Justice's seat opened up. Rehnquist's seat stays with the conservatives, but it does give the Democrats more room to oppose Roberts. Something like a "we'll let you nominate a conservative to replace the conservative rehnquist but we'll do our best to keep Roberts out of the swing seat of Justice O'Connor."
And hey, the little club that was discussing the issue in shinsengumi's first Supreme Court thread is coming back for this one!!
Anyone care to join if I start something like a Political Nut group?? =P Or if anyone already has such a group, let me know!! hehe
Dont really like some of the things he did
well consider Bush's current political capital, he couldn't afford to do anything over the top, the handling of the gulf crisis, Iraq, and the gas price are putting him in a no win situation. He will pick someone like Roberts to the position, but I think he will appoint Thomas or one of the other conservative as the chief justice. For the liberals, this is a bullet that they have to bite. I just hope they pick someone that is a judicial conservative, because they are the ones that try to refrain from rewriting the past supreme court decision.
Well, since Bush is in his second term, he really doesn't have to care all that much about liberal opinion. Not like he has to worry about being re-elected. He's definitely going to appoint a conservative judge.
Does anyone else find it a little sad that nobody's talking about the guy that just died, but rather the guy that's going to replace him?
well, if you have not heard, Bush has appointed John Roberts, who has yet to be confirmed, to be the new chief of justice
I do not know what your guys view on this is, but to me, this is fairly irresponsible
I'm quite surprised that President Bush would nominate Roberts as the Chief Justice. He has absolutely no experience on the bench, and thus I feel that he is not qualified for the position of Chief Justice. An associate justice, maybe/yes, but definitely not Chief Justice. I strongly feel that the position of Chief Justice demands not only all the qualifications of any associate justice, but years of experience with innumerable cases in order to effectively lead the Court into the coming years, especially with some of the biggest issues of our time arising to the Court.
I truly feel that this is a wrong choice and that President Bush should have nominated a present associate Justice to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist.
After significant discussion with a number of friends, we narrowed the possible list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice down to two: Roberts and Scalia. As Scalia had his experience and his record to back him up, while Roberts remained a wild card, we decided that Scalia was the likely candidate.
Oh how wrong we were.
It's not irresponsible for the President to nominate John Roberts as Chief Justice. What this means is that Roberts is no longer the one nominated to fill Associate Justice O'Connor's seat and that someone else will be nominated for that position. This also means that Justice O'Connor may not retire quite yet, as she stated that she would serve until a replacement for her was selected, which means that the eight-justice scenario may not come to pass at all. This is good because the possibility of tied decisions in the court is something to be avoided if at all possible.
This is not the first time people have been nominated straight to the top without having first being an associate justice. William Howard Taft, for example, was named Chief Justice in 1921 without having any prior court experience. Roberts, on the other hand, has served as an appellate court justice and he clerked for Rehnquist.
I'm not saying I like this turn of events, as I do have my doubts, but I have to admit that I am surprised, and so I'm going to be looking into it some more.
Besides, now the guessing game for the new replacement for Justice O'Connor is open again!
So let's revive the other thread!!!!! =P
Well, if Roberts replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor stays for the time being, the overal liberal/conservative make up of the court would not change drastically, i.e. hidden's last point that the democrats didn't lose too much in this second court opening.
Still, I truly feel that experience is the most important qualification for the position of Chief Justice.
i actually thought Justice Scalia would be the likely choice to replace Justice Rehnquist as well. So I'm wrong once again.
Anyways, let's all pick names out of a hat now for the oh-so-crucial swing seat replacement candidate!!!
Well, one thing that we could possibly get from Bush appointing Roberts as the chief justice is that he feels that Roberts would most likely not be approved for the swing vote due to his conservative ideology, or undergoing very long hearings. It also feels that Bush is in a hurry to appoint another judge to the court. He seems to be comfortable enough that Roberts will continue the leadership of Rehnquist as the a vocal voice of conservatism.
But really, the democrats did not lose at all in this battle, I am quite surprised by the turn of events
Well, one thing is for certain, George W. Bush is going to have a much larger impact on this country than anyone thought when he was first elected. That being said, I don't think we are sure to have a conservative court for the next 20 years as some people have complained/celebrated. It's very hard to guess how someone will vote a decade into the future. Let's not forget that it was George W. Bush's own father who appointed Souter and he is one of the most liberal judges on the court.
that is true, however, Souter before he was appointed, was a conservative. Exactly how his views changed, we do not know
Well, Roberts has been endorsed by Senate Judiciary. Now it's onto the Senate plenary for the final confirmation vote.
there are to many republicans in power