Rehnquist Dead at 80

[Stephen Joseph 0]

they wont put up someone to CJ that they feel betrayed the party

 

Looking at thomas...

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Actually, a Thomas nomination to Chief Justice might not be so bad. Here's why: if Thomas is nominated again there will be a lightning rod of controversy among liberals and liberal organizations. Sure, we'll have the rehashing of Anita Hill, but since 1992 we've come to find out more details about that and the issue has lost some semblance of crediblity. I'm sure the Democrats would love to pour their $50m funds into opposing Thomas to the Chief Justice position, but at what cost?

 

If the Dems spent all of their resources blocking a Thomas promotion to Chief Justice that means that Roberts and whoever replaces Rehnquist's seat on the court have a free ride. Thus, it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility for conservatives to use Thomas as bait for the Dems to spend all of their time with while they get two sure fire conservatives on the court.

 

Plus, barring another big scandal (and Anita Hill won't work this time b/c it didn't work in 1992) Thomas would have the votes to be confirmed b/c I don't see the Dems wanting to launch into another tirade about a minority justice. After all, before Anita Hill Dems didn't want to take too many pot shots at him.

 

Just something to think about because there is a TON of strategy that goes into these nominations and this isn't necessarily a bad one.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Your war of attrition plan intrigues me. Maybe we'll get some more "I hope his wife feeds him lots of bacon and eggs so he dies of heart disease as most black men are prone to do" out of it. Those comments are always uplifting to hear.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

they wont put up someone to CJ that they feel betrayed the party

 

Looking at thomas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is Thomas perceived to have betrayed the party?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Christ, can't we just nominate someone who's a fair, qualified dude and not worry about political jostlings?

[The Czech Republic 0]

they wont put up someone to CJ that they feel betrayed the party

 

Looking at thomas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is Thomas perceived to have betrayed the party?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he does the whole Antonin Scalia-esque Constitution-uber-alles thing, where if he has to betray his party's dogma in order to make a fair ruling, so be it. Most notable case of it was mentioned in Parliament Of Whores, when Scalia went to bat for flag-burners to the surprise of Solicitor General Ken Starr.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

they wont put up someone to CJ that they feel betrayed the party

 

Looking at thomas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is Thomas perceived to have betrayed the party?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he does the whole Antonin Scalia Constitution-uber-alles thing, where if he has to betray his party in order to make a fair ruling, so be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Christ, can't we just nominate someone who's a fair, qualified dude and not worry about political jostlings?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One man's "fair qualified" is another man's "raging judicial activist."

[Art Sandusky 0]

Well shit, at least the guy's combed over laws and whatnot for years, so who cares? Dude knows what he's doing.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

The controversy with Scalia is that he authored the opinion in Bush v. Gore I believe that gave Bush the White House. Thus, if Bush were to promote Scalia to Chief Justice it may be construed as "political payback."

 

Then again, it seems that Bush has rewarded a lot of his daddy's friends and advisers with jobs in his cabinet so what else would be new, right?

[The Czech Republic 0]

I've been reading on Scalia, and he really seems like a man of integrity. I think if there's if there's one man that's above the bullshit, it's him. If he knew he was getting the CJ spot just for authoring the opinion in 2000, he'd probably turn it down. This is the guy that won't permit the media to record his speeches, and only wants C-SPAN to televise the Supreme Court's cases if they're done in their entirety and are seen by the American public. He fears that everything he does will be misquoted, misrepresented, and reduced to soundbites by Headline News--can't imagine why. Anyway, I think he's the right man for the job.

[teke184 0]

He fears that everything he does will be misquoted, misrepresented, and reduced to soundbites by Headline News--can't imagine why. Anyway, I think he's the right man for the job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rightly so in his case...

 

Hear about the parallels he was attempting to make in one speech that were twisted into "Scalia advocates deviant sex / polygamy"?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Yea, I'm not advocating against Scalia by any means and think he's a man of integrity as well. I'm just saying that opposition/heat may come on him for that 2000 election decision people don't want to forget (and for many reasons that entire election poisoned US politics to the degree that its bitter feelings still haven't gone away and won't for a long time).

 

However, we know that Bush likes to do a bunch of "firsts" so it wouldn't surprise me to see him pass over Scalia and hand the torch to Thomas although the odds of that happening right now are about 100-1.

[Ravenbomb 0]

It looks like he's praying for constipation relief.

He's trying to sneak a fart without it making noise

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I've been reading on Scalia, and he really seems like a man of integrity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To the contrary, Scalia seems like the party hack to me.

 

I know I use this example again and again (I just used it yesterday on another board) but I bring it up not because it's all I have (there's plenty more ammo) but because it gives great insight into man's train of thought: In the court's decision to make sodomy laws unconstitutional, Scalia said "It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war" (Source, page 48.) And yet, somehow, he doesn't think that upholding sodomy laws isn't taking a side in the culture war as well??

[SuperJerk 0]

Scalia's philosphy can be be summed up with a quote from "America: the Book":

 

A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution according to the language and original intent of the text at the time of its writing, in much the same way as a fundamentalist views the Bible.  Fortunately for strict constructionists, they have been endowed by God with the superhuman gift of being able to read the minds of people who died 200 years ago.  Naturally, they use this power only for good.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's another one:

 

How many strict constructionists does it take to change a light bulb?

 

The Constitution does not address the changing of lightbulbs, and because there were no lightbulbs in 1789, we have no power to act on this matter.

[The Czech Republic 0]

How does Ruth Bader Ginsburg change a lightbulb?

 

Watch France do it first.

 

n'yah

[The Czech Republic 0]

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” to decide What Is Golf.

I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer?

The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

Come on. Writing dissents like that are the next best thing to doing them MikeSC-style.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The SUPREME COURT was deciding cases about GOLF?!

[The Czech Republic 0]

I guess the Casey Martin thing really did go that far, to our surprise, and Scalia's as well.

 

Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why police departments distribute "mug" shots of wanted felons, rather than Ivy-League-type posture pictures; it is why bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking "You admit that you saw only the killer's face?" will be laughed out of the courtroom.

TheAntoninDC

[Jobber of the Week 0]

TheAntoninDC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Content: 85%

Crowd Reaction: 95%

Overall: 91%

 

The Czech Republic has gained overness from this post.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why police departments distribute "mug" shots of wanted felons, rather than Ivy-League-type posture pictures; it is why bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking "You admit that you saw only the killer's face?" will be laughed out of the courtroom.

 

Man, I want that guy for our High Court

[SuperJerk 0]

"Respected moderates"?

 

Stevens is the HEAD of the Liberal bloc of the court.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's because the dumbass you were arguing with typed Stevens when he meant to type Souter.

 

 

 

Also, TheAntoninDC>>>>>>my light bulb joke >>>>>Czech's light bulb joke that made no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush nominates Roberts as chief justice

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Monday nominated Judge John Roberts to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice of the United States.

 

"It is fitting that a great chief justice be followed in office by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution, his profound respect for the Supreme Court and his complete devotion to the cause of justice," Bush said from the White House, with the judge by his side.

 

"I am honored and humbled by the confidence that the president had shown in me," Roberts said. (Watch nomination and acceptance -- 3:57)

 

"And I'm very much aware that, if I am confirmed, I would succeed a man that I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."

 

Roberts accepted the offer in a meeting with Bush on Monday morning, a senior administration official said.

 

Rehnquist, who quietly advanced the conservative ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court under his leadership, died Saturday. He was 80.

 

The justice, diagnosed with thyroid cancer, had a tracheotomy and received chemotherapy and radiation as part of his treatment.

 

The president must re-nominate Roberts, whose Senate confirmation hearings to become an associate justice are scheduled to begin Tuesday. Bush had named Roberts initially to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring.

 

Roberts, a 1979 graduate of Harvard Law School, clerked in 1980 and 1981 for Rehnquist before the latter was elevated to chief justice.

 

Roberts, 50, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, considered the most influential federal panel outside of the Supreme Court, took the bench in 2003.

 

He was nominated to the same court in 1992 by the president's father, President George H.W. Bush, but his nomination did not come up for a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate before the White House changed hands in January 1993.

 

A longtime appellate attorney, Roberts has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, both in private practice and as deputy solicitor general during the elder Bush's administration.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/rob...tion/index.html

 

The fuck?

Edited September 5, 2005 by Y2Jerk

[NoCalMike 0]

Roberts as Chief Justice? Why?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I'm not that surprised. Roberts is young and Bush may feel that he might as well take out two birds with one stone rather than make three different types of appointments.

 

However, I say it's a stupid move b/c he could've tempted Dems to jump all over Thomas/Scalia being appointed CJ and made for an easy confirmation for Roberts and whoever else he choses. This is definitely going to make Roberts hearings even more interesting.

[teke184 0]

The big reason behind the Roberts for Chief Justice change...

 

Now that Rehnquist is dead, the job of presiding CJ goes to John Paul Stevens by seniority and Stevens is the leader of the Liberal bloc of the court.

 

 

They don't want to give him (Stevens) more power than they have to.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well I don't know about THAT. I mean I just spent a whole thread lobbying for Scalia.

[Styles 0]

Interesting. Like I said though, the vast majority of Chiefs have been appointed directly to the Court rather than promoted, but as Czech pointed out also, many of those were already men with national distinction.

 

I wonder if the other Justices get jealous that the new guy immediately becomes their boss. Kind of hard to haze the new guy if he's your boss.

 

("Come on guys, where's my robe?! Ginsberg! I see you giggling")

[The Czech Republic 0]

John Roberts is qualified, I'm sure, but I don't think he's Chief Justice material the way Scalia or even Thomas is. He's young, and he's vanilla. He'd make an exemplary Associate Justice, but not the Chief Justice of the United States. No. Not yet.