john roberts = new chief justice (nrr)
Swayze
14,705 Posts
bush nominates roberts as next chief justicei'm fucking speechless
Swayze
14,705 Posts
Comments
.... Oh, and
bush's initial appointment to replace sandra day o'conner (another supreme court justice who just stepped down last month). yet another good ol' boy conserative clone...hasn't been around very long, doesn't have much of a paper trail, but his wife is a huge pro-life fundraiser.
but dude's only 50, which seems like a slap in the face to the rest of the bench...
Exactly. But my feeling is he's not the fairy godmother
I doubt if Roberts will be to the right of Rehnquist. It is possible that he will be more moderate. The Dems can show what good sports they are by letting him take the job, then not approve another judge to any court until we get GW out in 2008.
Dan
How much credit should be given to his pro bono work for homosexual rights?
The guy confuses me.
Chief Justice is solely an administrative position--he's the one saddled with the responsibility of running the courthouse, but his vote doesn't count any more than that of the associate justices, nor does he have any power to influence them.
The only real danger here is a collateral one: that the Dems will let an arch-conservative fill O'Connor's seat whom they would have more vigorously opposed if he (or she) had been nominated for the more high profile seat of Chief.
And, as Dan points out, it's unlikely that Roberts will emerge as any more conservative than Rhenquist.
if he does believe those positions, he's far right. if he doesn't, he's entirely for sale. I don't know which one is worse.
faux_rill, even if his role is mostly administrative, he's still symbolically higher up...if I was any other justice on there, I would be mighty pissed.
All attorneys take an oath to vigorously represent the interests of their clients. As an attorney, if you fail to make an argument that you think will advance your clients' interests--even if you don't personally accept it--you are guilty of an ethical lapse. Not that this is really here or there--I think the interests he has represented over the years are indicative of what his principles are, and I deplore them--but it's not evidence of being unprincipled. Again, he doesn't seem to be any further to the right than the man he's replacing.
Not at all--it's traditional to appoint a chief from outside the court; Rhenquist is a historical anomaly in that respect. I doubt any of the current justices--save maybe Scalia or Thomas--would be interested in the position. Again, it's only real significance is administrative. It does have symbolic importance, but only to the generally ignorant American public--it's not a symbolism that is going to sway any of the other members of the court in determining how to cast their vote.
yeah but he can refuse any case he wants.
all I'm saying is if dude spends his entirely life defending corporations and then goes home and rocks out to rage against the machine, I don't have much respect for lil john.
aight then I take back some of my outrage.
Well, that's not really true for a government attorney.
Regardless, though, I believe his career trajectory and the cases that he has been involved in during its course are indicative of his principles, and I also believe that he is a deeply principled person... it's just that his principles are completely fucked up.
Psshhh, they're all in collusion. Bipartisan politics is just a way for the wheeler-dealers to keep the masses distracted with meaningless bickering.
I thought the Chief Justice also has administrative jobs with all the Federal judges in the U.S. as well as his role as Chief Justice with the Supreme.