This was going to be in GQ but I figured let’s get opinions/conjecture as well.
First, how is the Chief Justice decided? With Rhenquist likely to retire soon, we’ll need a new one. So how is the CJ determined? Vote among other Justices, senority, Presidential appointment, Congressional naming?
Second, and this is where I’d ask you to state if it’s opinion (what you want) or likely (what will probably happen). Whom will it be?
One or oith of these have maybe been done, but I couldn’t find anything relevant in a search.
President nominates the Chief Justice, which has to be confirmed by the Senate. Could be someone on the existing court or someone from outside. Who will it be? One rumor said Thomas, but I doubt it. Ditto for Scalia. Too much chance for a brutal confirmation fight, but who knows. The other justices are all too old or liberal for Bush. I let others conjecture on outside candidates.
Well, my primary question has been answered. Thanks. I’d have to agree that there’s no way Thomas would get the support required. (Unless it’s a straight majority vote? Maybe a new question there)
If anyone wants to answer that one or continue with ideas of whom should/likely be the next CJ, by all means have at it. Otherwise let this thread die a slow death.
All judicial appointments require only a simple majority.
The 2/3 requirement is only for treaties.
If an associate justice is appointed to be Chief Justice then there would have to be a whole new confirmation process. Scalia or Thomas would likely face a nasty hearing from the Democrats. They have a paper trail.
It’s a lot easier to get someone with less of a paper trail confirmed.
Thanks for the response BobT. Assuming any nominee for CJ would be dragged through the mud by the Democrats, it seems more possible for Thomas or Scalia to be approved if it’s a straight 51 to 49 vote. Am I right to think that the blocking would be less of the Dems arguing than the Repubs not getting 51 votes?
I’m not sure I completely understand your last question. It’s a straight majority, as has already been said, but the minority can filibuster (draw out debate indefinitely) until a cloture vote. That (cloture/ending debate) takes 60 votes.
With the trouble Bush Sr. had in getting Thomas appointed in the first place, he’d be a poor choice for Chief Justice. He score only a “Qualified” rating from the ABA and passed the senate vote by the skin of his teeth, 52/48. Scalia has a virtually identical voting record as Rehnquist, conservative, anti-abortion - a safe bet for next CJ.
My understanding is that most of the Supreme Court wonks think that O’ Connor is the most likely to get the stripes when Rehnquist steps down, and that Al Gonzales will take her seat. Some conservatives (like [urlhttp://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0804/081104-keyes.htm]Alan Keyes are urging Bush not to do so and instead give the jobs to more Borkian candidates.
It’s not just a matter of a simple majority, by the way. A simple majority is all that’s required for a confirmation once a vote has been called for, but senate rules provide that unlimited debate on that vote can be called for by 41 senators. Once unlimited debate has been called for, the debate can only be ended if 60 senators make a cloture vote and end debate…in other words, as long as they have 41 senators, the Democrats can filibuster any Republican confirmee they don’t approve of. That’s why a lot of folks think O’ Connor and Gonzales are the most likely candidiates for CJ and new AJ; under the rules as they now stand, the Republicans still need the cooperation of the Democrats to a degree.
I don’t think O’Connor is a likely choice because of her stance on abortion; she’s against it, but goes with stare decisis and won’t vote to overturn Roe.
Let me just go on record as saying that I think we will see a smokescreen when Rehnquist’s seat opens up.
If I was President Bush (wanting to get conservative judges on the bench) first I would nominate Scalia. First of all Scalia had a relatively uneventful confirmation first time around and liberals are still kicking themselves over that. Second given his conservative slant (understatement) on matters such as homosexual rights and abortion, Democrats would hunker down for one helluva fight.
So there would be a filibuster and eventually the nomination would be withdrawn or voted down. Before the smoke cleared I would push through a conservative who would have been protested vehemently if he was not following such a bitter confirmation hearing - maybe somebody like Alito.
That’s my call - after all - it’s basically the same way that Scalia got onto the bench - slipping in through the aftermath of Rehnquist’s battle for confirmation.
Also echoing Mr. Kobayashi: I do not think it will be O’Conner - but mainly that’s because she’s so old. I think there will be a push towards appointing younger justices who will have a longer impact. Putting a young conservative atop the Supreme Court would be considered a legacy for the President.
Actually, O’ Connor’s moderate view on Roe is of the main reasons she’s considered a likely candidate at this point. Right now, polls say that most Americans(around 59%) want President Bush to appoint justices who will uphold Roe, and only about 31% want him to appoint a justice who will explicitly overrule it, like Scalia wants to do. Link to story. Scalia may be Bush’s favorite Justice, but he (Bush) still has to work with the Democrats to get confirmation and he and the Republicans are still mindful of public opinion. Getting a strong anti-Roe choice in as Chief Justice might require the “nuclear option” of doing away with filibusters in judicial appointments altogether, which would start a shitstorm among Democrats in the Senate. Not even all Republicans would want it, since some pessimists among them are still afraid a Democrat could still someday be in the White House. Putting a Scalia or a Thomas in would require rock-solid solidarity among the Republicans to absoulutely subjugate the Democrats in the Senate. O’ Connor is generally considered a strong compromise solution. She’s a good deal older than Thomas, but by Chief Justice standards 74 is almost adolescent.
The funny thing is — speaking as a partisan voter who viewed Bush’s reelection as a disaster of truly monstrous proportions — Bush himself is far more moderate than the administration he heads. And Supreme Court nominations might be one of the areas where he is less inclined to let other apparatchiks of his reign tell him what he ought to do. I hold out hope for Sandra Day O’Connor. I’m thinking from a GWB perspective that it can’t hurt to be the first Prez to appoint a woman as SCJ, and she’s sufficiently conservative that most of the rightwing will not scream while the leftwing will be quiet because she’s not anti-Roe. Aside from which the SCJ doesn’t weild all that much power overall so it’s not like he’s giving up much.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will likely approve whomever the president nominates for Chief Justice. He is on the record as anti-obstructionist when it comes to presidential appointments, even when he differs politically with the person.
One other thing I hadn’t thought of before. (Allow me to flaunt my ignorance of the machinations of the SC) If the Dems filibuster a CJ nominee indefinately, what happens then? Say Gonzales is nominated and confirmed, there is a full sittting bench. What happens if there is no CJ? Can the court still proceed or is it locked until a CJ is named?
Russ is not a pushover. If the nominee is truly heinous he will act to block it (with the dismal exception of voting for Ashcroft for AG). He understands the difference between “disagrees politically” and “likely to damage the Constitution.”
