Bush Nominates Roberts to Replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

pax

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
11,412
Location
Ewen's new American home
So...what do y'all think? :scratch:

I wasn't really anti-Roberts very much; I was of the belief that we could have done far worse in terms of ideology, and it's hard to argue with the man's qualifications. And Lord knows the prospect of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia scared the hell out of me.

I actually rather like the idea that maybe we'll see a replacement nom who's also "not too bad"; maybe Edith Brown Clement will get another look? I'd really like to see another female nominee.
 
Looking at Roberts as a replacement for Rehnquist instead of a replacement for O'Connor makes Roberts seem less frightening, and I only say this because Rehnquist was already a very conservative justice.

The Bush Administration, on the other hand, is taking a huge gamble here. What if Roberts suddenly pulled a Souter and became more liberal than expected? And then he'd be Chief Justice on top of it. At least Scalia didn't get the top spot; that man is a bigoted disgrace of a judge.

Melon
 
Bad idea. It would have been much quicker to get Roberts put in and nominate someone from within. To nominate Roberts not only means that you have a chief justice with no previous Supreme Court experience, it also means you have a chief justice in place for 30 years potentially -- Roberts is only in his 40s now. Should have elevated someone from within. That being said, there's no way I would have accepted a Scalia or Thomas chief justice.
 
I don't think it's so bad. I seriously was expecting him to elevate Thomas to Chief Justice to prove he really does like black people after all (in the wake of Katrina). Roberts doesn't have much of a record, so Bush is taking a gamble....he may turn out differently than Bush is banking on. :shrug:
 
Good idea. The Administration has already tested the waters and see Roberts as an easy confirmation. Why set yourself up for another political parade known as a confirmation hearing when you get get two for one with Roberts.
 
nbcrusader said:
Good idea. The Administration has already tested the waters and see Roberts as an easy confirmation. Why set yourself up for another political parade known as a confirmation hearing when you get get two for one with Roberts.

Good point, nbc--hadn't thought of that.
 
I think there are two ways of looking at it -- You could certainly think that Roberts has been nominated because it's an easy confirmation hearing, something which is all the more credible considering that the Bush administration doesn't have a lot of political capital to spend on that fight.

Alternatively, you could suggest that nominating someone who Democrats have been fairly accepting of as Chief Justice leaves open the option of nominating a far more divisive individual for the other open seat. I'll be interested to see who Bush nominates as Associate Justice.
 
nbcrusader said:
Good idea. The Administration has already tested the waters and see Roberts as an easy confirmation. Why set yourself up for another political parade known as a confirmation hearing when you get get two for one with Roberts.

i also agree

roberts was always seen more as a rehnquist replacement

i think most of the chiefs have not been sitting supremes

much better pick than a. scalia

kennedy would have been the only sitting supreme that might have made sense

but the base would have gone nuts
 
The whole thing makes me nauseous. Why, WHY, did not one but TWO justices have to leave/die when THIS president was in power, of ALL presidents. WHY DAMNIT!?

I don't want a right-wing conservative being the chief justice for decades on end. I don't want the court leaning right on everything.
 
namkcuR said:
The whole thing makes me nauseous. Why, WHY, did not one but TWO justices have to leave/die when THIS president was in power, of ALL presidents. WHY DAMNIT!?

I don't want a right-wing conservative being the chief justice for decades on end. I don't want the court leaning right on everything.

I doubt I'll approve of Bush's nominations any more than you do, but don't forget that Clinton appointed two Justices, as did the first President Bush. It's not as though Bush has been handed a golden opportunity to pack the court with conservatives any more than Clinton had a chance to pack the court with progressives.
 
I think we still over-sensationalize the Supreme Court nominations. The fearmongering during the Reagan era was in full gear, yet landmark decisions (Roe) remain intact.
 
namkcuR said:
The whole thing makes me nauseous. Why, WHY, did not one but TWO justices have to leave/die when THIS president was in power, of ALL presidents. WHY DAMNIT!?

It was always a strong possibility, at least once Bush won a second term.
 
Confirmation hearings start today. But there will be no questioning of Roberts. Instead, we will get a series of speeches from political talking heads pontificating on the importance of the Supreme Court, etc. :yawn:
 
Judge on speedy path to chief justice post

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Less than three years after first donning a judge's robe, John Glover Roberts Jr. is on a path toward speedy confirmation for becoming, at age 50, chief justice of the United States.

A turbulent week that included the funeral of William H. Rehnquist, his mentor and the man he hopes to replace, his renomination by President Bush for chief justice and controversy over the government's tardy response to Hurricane Katrina has not dampened Roberts' candidacy to join the Supreme Court.

Republicans and Democrats see no serious obstacle to Roberts' confirmation. Liberal, civil rights, civil libertarian and abortion rights groups have come out against him but not one of the Senate's 100 members has declared opposition.

"I expect these hearings will show that you have the appropriate philosophy to lead our nation into the future," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and a Judiciary Committee member, in a written copy of his opening statement.
 
nbcrusader said:
I think we still over-sensationalize the Supreme Court nominations. The fearmongering during the Reagan era was in full gear, yet landmark decisions (Roe) remain intact.



i know. and Pat Robertson's been praying *so hard* for more deaths! yet, Roe v Wade lives.

;)
 
nbcrusader said:
Confirmation hearings start today. But there will be no questioning of Roberts. Instead, we will get a series of speeches from political talking heads pontificating on the importance of the Supreme Court, etc. :yawn:



rumor has it that Schumer is so concerned with these hearings that he's been practicing with a Harvard Law Prof.

the most dangerous place in DC is between Schumer and a camera.

;)

(see, i can dig on the Dems too)
 
Biden’s opening was good.


This narrow view of the constitution
is something conservatives hide behind
to push their bias agenda, when it suits them



Nobody may be considering this now
But, Roberts very well could be in place until 2040
how old will you be 35 years from now?


this guy will move the court to his liking
the Chief has more power than many realize

he chooses the judge to write the majority decision.
it can be narrow, that case only or
broad, sweeping change across the board.
 
I think they should ask him about this


not%20so%20much%20gay%20as%20just%20freaky.jpg
 
Exploiting Katrina

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, said lessons should be learned from the hurricane.
"The powerful winds and flood waters of Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind," he said. "As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality and the gross disparities that exist in our society."

Link :huh:

I hope Robertson comes out against hurricanes...
 
I actually read an interesting analysis of this whole thing, which basically made the case that the Republicans know abortion is their strongest issue. Moral issues tend to play on voter's emotions, etc. To pick someone they really thought would overturn Roe V Wade would be politically stupid. I don't know if I agree with this (and obviously no one truly knows how the justices will turn out), but it was something I hadn't even thought about before.
 
VertigoGal said:
I actually read an interesting analysis of this whole thing, which basically made the case that the Republicans know abortion is their strongest issue. Moral issues tend to play on voter's emotions, etc. To pick someone they really thought would overturn Roe V Wade would be politically stupid. I don't know if I agree with this (and obviously no one truly knows how the justices will turn out), but it was something I hadn't even thought about before.



i think this is absolutely correct.

on this line of thought, check out _What's the Matter With Kansas_. the essential point is this: those who are most concerned with "moral" issues tend to be the devout working classes of the midwest and the south; they've been voting republican since the 80s or so with the promise that those who they elect will deliver on these moral issues, yet, all they have to show for it are tax breaks for the rich, service industry jobs, and dwindling public services that would benefit them the most.
 
right. like the guy who helped us move, who has 10 children and proudly tells us he's voting for George W. Bush. my mom's parents live in rural TN and say they see this all the time...poor people voting against their own self-interests, but doing so because they sincerely believe in the values touted by conservative politicians.
 
Back
Top Bottom