http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050905/NEWS06/50905001
Isn’t this just dandy. Lord knows his judicial experence qualifies him to lead the highest court in the land.
Stolen from John Corrado’s post back on July 20th:
Um, I’m no Supeme Court expert, but reading any brief biography of Renquist reveals that he was a Supreme Court Justice from 1972 to 1986 before ascending to the top spot. Seems that fourteen is more than two.
Is the rest of that list as thoroughly researched?
He has argued a shitload of cases before the Court, more than nearly anyone alive. You may not care for his politics but he is clearly qualified.
Ok look. is he qualified to LEAD the court? I mean I have talked to doctors plenty of times, does that mean I am qualified to be chief of surgery?
I am fairly sure that the post referred to concerned qualifications for the Court, not Chief Justice. Back on July 20th Chief justice was not on the table. I wonder how the rest of the justices feel about this.
Nice strawman. Do you have a medical degree? Have you worked in the medical field for decades? Have you helped medical doctors make major decisions regarding unprecidented procedures.
Try again.
I can’t imagine that they’d be suprised. It was a very obvious decision given that most Chiefs do not start out as Associates and O’Conner agreed to stay on until her successor was chosen.
It does seem rather strange to not promote someone from within as opposed to letting the newbie fill that spot. Sure he may be qualified, but I’m thinking with all things being equal, seniority counts for more than credentials. At this point we don’t even know where he really stands on major constitutional issues, but Bush wants him to lead the highest court of the land?
It’s like appointing someone as concert master without hearing them play first. If I were the other justices, I would most displeased.
Once again, the overwhelming majority of CJ’s were not AJ’s first. Not only would this not come as a suprise, it would have been expected. It would require an additional confirmation hearing. There is no way they were displeased.
That’s the difference between SCJs and the rest of us. They’re ‘displeased’ with things; we’re just pissed.
Actually, it would be strange (eg, out of the norm) to promote an existing justice. More CJ’s have been appointed from off the bench (SCOTUS) than from on.
I’m certain that the other justices fully understand the politics driving this decision.
I’m sure you’re right but I had no idea. It seems to be counterintuitive. Why is it that most Chiefs do not start out as Associates?
I assume that it’s to avoid an additional, divisive confirmation hearing.
It was my understanding that the position of Chief Justice only differed from that of Associate Justice in the addition of administrative and ceremonial duties. Is that correct?
Yes, but the administrative duties can carry a lot of weight.
Not to pick on you but I am suprised about something. We have threads about this in GQ, GD, MPSIMS and the Pit. They are all pretty much asking the same questions although phrased in a manner that is appropriate for the given forum. There is like a huge front page article about this on CNN.com and every other news site on Earth. Five minutes of reading is all it would take to have an in depth understanding of what is going on here. Why, given this, are people suprised in the least about what happened?
Look, the main reason that I voted for Kerry was because of what I feared could happen to the SCOTUS. I understand the concern. That said, Roberts as a nominee for AJ is entirely appropriate. Given Rehnquist’s death, changing the nomination to CJ is not only appropriate but an obvious and expected decision. It could have been so, so much worse. What am I missing here?
I find this interesting since it is the opposite of the experience in Canada. Canada has only had two Chief Justices who were not first Puisne Justices. The first, Sir William Buell Richards, was the first Chief Justice, so obviously there wasn’t much opportunity to be an associate first. The last, Fitzpatrick, held the post of CJC between 1906 and 1918. For nearly a hundred years, all Chief Justices have been appointed from the ranks of the Puisne Justices with seniority of service at the Court usually being an important factor. The current Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin was sat on the SCC for 11 years prior to her being named CJC.
I’m relieved, actually. I thought for certain that Bush would appoint Scalia when Rehnquist left, but I think he just has too much on his plate and not enough “political capital” right now. Roberts isn’t my ideal, but he seems smart and conscientious, whereas I think we’d be fucked with frothing, partisan Scalia.
My question was asked merely to confirm or disprove my impression that Roberts as CJ wouldn’t be any worse or better, depending on one’s perspective, as Roberts as an AJ.
Depends on how well you either
-
Kiss ass
-
Contribute to campaigns
Or a bottle of gin can make you Chief Of Snoggery.
-Joe, Chief of Dolphin Floggery