The Shrine

Bush nominates Roberts for CHIEF Justice

I, now more than ever, believe that Roberts is just a fall guy, a pawn, for Congress to reject, and then to give Bush a reason to point fingers at the "uncooperative" Congress for "rejecting all of my nominees". If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would be extremely pissed off at this notion of promoting a justice with 2 years of court experience to the highest position a judge could ever have, totally bypassing any of the Supreme Justices with actual experience.

It is rather ridiculous.

I've yet to come up with a rational that I consider reasonable where the most junior judge on the court becomes the Chief Justice.

I can't tell if Bush is serious or he's just losing his mind over the stress over Katrina.

Apparently, it's more common to hire a Chief Justice than to promote one.

Of course, this still doesn't excuse the inexperience of Roberts, though. Bush wants a young entry, so that his "legacy" can live on. However, once Roberts is on the seat, it's really his choice on whether he wants to do whatever the fuck he wants. After all, plenty of other justices have defied some of the choices of their appointed party.

(Hmmm...Taft served as Chief Justice for 8 years...)

SineSwiper wrote:I, now more than ever, believe that Roberts is just a fall guy, a pawn, for Congress to reject, and then to give Bush a reason to point fingers at the "uncooperative" Congress for "rejecting all of my nominees".

To do that, Bush would have actually chosen someone that would be in real danger of being rejected. Which Roberts is not.

I have heard that Roberts is known as a decent guy who stands up for his convictions, though I haven't researched things in detail. I would rather have someone like that as Justice, even if I don't agree with his convictions, than someone of no integrity who I agreed with nominally but did not respect.

(As a general political figure, Hillary Clinton is probably the best example of this I can think of for me personally, though she's not in the judicial branch.)

That being said, I need to research things before I form a formal opinion on this...

Also, Tort, does your assessment of Roberts as likely to win the seat include the recent development of his nomination as Chief instead of Associate Justice?

Don't see it mattering. He's not suddenly going to become unsuitable because he's in the middle chair on the bench.

The talk for weeks has been about how, all things considered, Roberts is a good candidate that even the left can tolerate. How does this change things whatsoever?

I believe it changes things because I'd guess that, in principle, the Chief Justice is generally expected to have more experience than Roberts currently has.

I mean, a company might easily appoint a President of a specific branch (marketing, sales, distribution, research and development, etc.) who would not be regarded as a suitable candidate for CEO.

I don't really know, but I'm guessing the Chief Justice has more responsibilities and may need more experience to effectively do his job than does an Associate.

Roberts has been a judge for three years, and he's up for the highest judicial position in the country, which he will likely hold for the next 30+ years. I simply expect someone with more judicial experience.

Tortolia wrote:The talk for weeks has been about how, all things considered, Roberts is a good candidate that even the left can tolerate. How does this change things whatsoever?

Oh, I dunno. All the buzz I've been hearing is that nobody even knows who the fuck Roberts is and what he stands for. He's a blank slate.

The guy was originally picked to be a replacement for O'Connor when she retires. Now he's the nominee for Chief Justice. I don't know what Bush's motive is, but it's like he isn't even trying to not look suspicious.

Roberts being nominated Chief Justice definitely seems strange from the outside looking in. I'm not sure what the precedence is for nominating Chief Justices.

However, it doesn't necessarily mean he's not qualified. I'm not even sure how you define a person who'd be a good Chief Justice. I'm sure over the next several weeks, there will result in some interesting discourse among people who know more about it than me. Then it just becomes a case of trying to seperate the partisan agenda-pushing from the good information.

Ishamael wrote:However, it doesn't necessarily mean he's not qualified. I'm not even sure how you define a person who'd be a good Chief Justice.

Well, age, for one. Years of experience being a judge, two. Roberts doesn't have that.