Roberts to replace Renquist. . .
President Bush has amended the nomination of John Roberts and he will now be confirmed as Chief Justice, replacing William Renquist. Since Sandra Day O'Connor has said that she would stay on until her replacement is confirmed, there should be a full court come first Monday in Octber.
posted by stewdog | 12:31 PM | Permalink
|
5 comments
5 Comments:
Hm. We were just talking about this on Saturday and I guess I'm a little surprised that Bush didn't nominate Scalia as Chief Justice. Maybe I don't know enough about the dynamics of the situation...
What does everyone else think?
Scotty, I am sad that Scalia was not nominated. However, nominating him would have meant, I think, three confirmation hearings (replacing 2 judges and elevating one). Nominating Roberts as chief justice (a mistake, I believe), rolls two into one. And given that the Dems haven't found much on Roberts, he is perhaps a "safe" nominee.
CIV wonders, though, what the point is in giving Republicans the House, Senate, and Presidency, if the President is not able to appoint who he wants, but must instead consider the minority party's liberals and appoint someone who can be confirmed without a huge fight.
The politics of this assures the nation of a Supreme Court made up of less than the best and brightest. Alas.
Another thought, though. Could changing Roberts from judge to chief judge in fact give MORE ammunition to Democrats opposing him? Perhaps even Republicans will think Roberts was OK as judge, but perhaps not ready to be chief judge. Not that the title of chief has a whole lot of power, mind you, but I suppose it is symbolic.
Good points, C.I.V. I'm pretty sure Roberts will not become another David Souter, but I would have preferred to have someone (either Scalia or Thomas) who already has a history of Supreme Court decisions behind them.
Here's a question that I'm too lazy to check out at the moment. Is the role of Chief Justice *merely* symbolic? Does the Chief Justice have any power to shape the court or to influence the kinds of cases that get heard?
Okay Kate, check out these two links to answer your question.
SFGate.com
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Post a Comment
<< Home