These comments should upset some senators.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bruce H

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,624
Location
North Mo.
Roberts Vows to Be a Humble Chief Justice
AP - 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts pledged Monday to judge with humility and "without fear or favor" if approved as the nation's 17th chief justice and youngest in 200 years. "I have no agenda," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the opening of confirmation hearings. "I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes," said the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer, picked by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.



Kennedy should blow a gasket over these comments.
 
"I have no agenda," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the opening of confirmation hearings. "I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes,"
Click to expand...
. . . . .except get appointed to the supreme court. I've worked by entire life sucking up to every lowlife politican in DC. I worked the party circuit. I granted off the record interviews. I've provided background color commentary on high profile legal cases. I've pushed every button, mashed every lever, and twisted every knob in my quest to get a gig on the court. It is now in sight and all I have to do is endure the likes of Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Clintoon, and Specter and I'm in. Then I'll really be on the DC "A" list.

<step back and slaps self> Sorry, the cynic in me just got out of control.
 
I don't understand why one of the current justices with seniority and experience isn't being promoted to chief justice. Can somebody explain that for me?

Shouldn't we let the judges decide amongst themselves who is to lead them? Seems to me that would keep them happier. Nothing worse than a grumpy judge!

I'm getting a "king has no clothes on" impression here. This "questioning authority is unpatriotic" situation appears to be an ongoing phenomenon.
 
Roberts clerked for the Rehnquist. It not uncommon to replace a justice with someone who has a similar mindset. That's one reason Roberts for head jurist. The other is he's a slam dunk for Bush, there won't be any problems for this guy. It's a love fest.
 
There is no one on the current supreme court whom 1) you would want as chief justice who 2) would be confirmed by the Senate (its not simply elevating them, it requires an additional vote and approval by the Senate).

Thats why we have Robert's filling O'Conner's seat and being elevated to Chief Justice. You get to kill two birds with one stone. Now all Bush needs to do is find someone to replace Rehnquist's chair.
 
I wasn't aware Senate confirmation is required to simply promote a current judge to sit in the big chair.

I comprehend the situation better now. Thanks guys.
 
Well, umm...

Actually, Roberts is NOT replacing Justice O'Connor. He WAS originally nominated to replace her when she announced plans to retire. However...

When Chief Justice Rehnquist died last week, PrezBush did 2 things:

1. Withdrew his nomination of Roberts to replace O'Connor, and
2. RE-NOMINATED Roberts to replace REHNQUIST... both as (a) a SCOTUS judge AND as the new Chief Justice, simultaneously.

In the meanwhile, Justice O'Connor has agreed to stay on until ANOTHER/NEW PrezBush nominee can be confirmed to replace her. (And that will be a real contentious Battle Royal in the Senate!)

No president can simply appoint a Chief Justice and have him just go to work. Even if PrezBush appointed one of the current SCOTUS justices (i.e., Thomas, Souter, Kennedy, etc.), that nominee would still ALSO have to go through a Senate hearing/confirmation process.

The Roberts RE-nomination is neat because it (a) kills 2 birds with one stone, and (b) replaces conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist with conservative Chief Justice-to-be Roberts. Clearly, Bush's view (and likely that of most conservatives) is that NO sitting justice already there is Chief Justice material.
 
TonkinTwentyMil --

The first sentence of your final paragraph is right on the mark as to why Bush is nominating Roberts as CJ. However, it is a significant stretch of logic to say, in your second sentence of that paragraph, that Bush and most other conservatives do not view any other current justice as a potential CJ. It all comes down to political calculations with the decision being one of what will get a new CJ on the bench in the most expeditious manner with the least amount of political capital spent.

This means a long confirmation process is to be avoided. A nomination of Thomas or Scalia, each demonstrably more conservative than Roberts, would mean a meticulous review of their SCOTUS writings for any point which can be puffed up by the politicos and MSM to become a sticking point for their nomination and increase the time necessary for confirmation.
 
Kennedy blew his gaskets a long time ago!
Click to expand...

Actually Kennedy's opening statement was surprisingly impressive and beautifully delivered. It was as if he had taken some medication. I was amazed.
 
I'm going to sound ignorant, here, but I'm hoping someone can rectify the problem for me.

What real authority does the Chief Justice have that the other justices don't? I know he appoints several officers of the court, but that seems fairly weak justification for an entirely new round of "advice and consent." Is the Chief Justice the authority over what does or does not get granted cert? Does he have the standing to provide some sort of legal opinions on issues that the SCOTUS doesn't actually see?

I guess I'm just wondering if the furor over the new Chief Justice is just political posturing, or if there's a real issue over and above the issue of a new justice on the court.
 
Ryder: I don't understand why one of the current justices with seniority and experience isn't being promoted to chief justice. Can somebody explain that for me?
Click to expand...
Short answer: That's what Bush wants -- simple as that. It's his choice under the Constitution.

Long answer: Bush is trying to put a conservative into that seat for a long time. Roberts is what? 50? He could sit on the bench for 30+ years, and as Chief Justice, would set the agenda and tone for decades. That's a big political score for the GOP. Of course, there's always the chance that Roberts could be a stealth liberal (unlikely) like Souter.

There are no qualifications for the SCOTUS, by the way -- you don't even need to be a lawyer, much less a former judge (although that's the way it works by default). In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, there were non-lawyers on the SCOTUS all the time. The first time the SCOTUS was 100% lawyers was in the 1920s or 30s (can't remember exactly off the top of my head).

Ryder:Shouldn't we let the judges decide amongst themselves who is to lead them?
Click to expand...
I suspect that Bush has discussed the situation with the judges -- maybe not.

Anyway, the Justices don't get to pick among themselves. According to the Constitution, that's the President's job, subject to congressional approval. Bush can listen to the other judges, but he doesn't need to follow what they say. What if the judges "voted" to make Ginsburg their chief -- Bush would be a fool to follow that "vote."
 
You have a candidate CLAIMING he has no agenda to get the job.

Big surprise, there.......

I'd trust him more if he would just own up and admit the truth. We all know exactly how and why he got the nod and exactly where he will come down on the key rulings.

It would be refreshing if he would admit it, since his confirmation is already a slam dunk. The votes will go along straight party lines and the Repubs have enough votes to confirm him.

The rest of this is just a pony show.
 
Ryder: I don't understand why one of the current justices with seniority and experience isn't being promoted to chief justice. Can somebody explain that for me?
Click to expand...
It's called "court packing". The prez puts the people he wants onto the court and in controlling positions so he can get laws changed which he does not like.

I recall the term was coined for FDR's initial assault on supreme court authority and it has been used ever since.
 
at what point does all this just become......blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
Already has. The GOP has enough votes to get him in and there is nothing the dems can do to stop it. It's all just a BS show for politicians to get camera face time.

Clearly, Bush's view (and likely that of most conservatives) is that NO sitting justice already there is Chief Justice material.
Click to expand...
And some could argue that this means he realizes nobody on the present court will rubber stamp his right-wing religous right agenda.... which is probably not true because Scalia certainly would.
 
I recall the term was coined for FDR's initial assault on supreme court authority and it has been used ever since.
Click to expand...
FDR's court packing involved the threat to add additional justices (more than nine) to intimidate the court. That's very different from waiting until there's an opening to appoint justices who share your political viewpoint
 
Not really court packing

"It's called "court packing". The prez puts the people he wants onto the court and in controlling positions so he can get laws changed which he does not like."

Court packing is what FDR tried to do when he decided to nominate extra justices that openly favored some of his more radical social programs.

Besides as Chief Justice, Roberts still only has one vote in deciding which cases to review and one vote on all decisions. IIRC, the CJ gets more control in deciding the sequence of cases to be reviewed.

What Bush is doing is straight down the line constitutional and Roberts is a safe bet for confirmation. Slam Dunk? Yes, if Robert plays a safe and middle of the road hand. Ruth Bader Ginsberg (former Senior ACLU counsel) would have raised a ruckus if she had been honest about her positions as well, but that's not how the game is played at that level.

No President knows when a justice or Chief Justice is going to fall over. Some of them in the past have stayed well past the time when they were able to actively participate.

IMNSHO If anybody is out of line it's probably the Senate, that has turned the "Advise and Consent" process into a popularity contest and fund raising event for the fringe elements.
 
FDR's court packing involved the threat to add additional justices (more than nine) to intimidate the court.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I didn't recall that but it would take a constitutional amendment which is REALLY tough to get done. Even FDR would not have been able to pull that off.
 
I'll have to look that up again, maybe that's right. But, if they can pack the court with a simple congressional vote, it makes me wonder why nobody has done it yet?
 
But the million dollar question: could they add members with a simple majority vote or would it take two-thirds?
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't say, so I guess a simple majority. II-2-2 says (my underlining) that the President shall have power to "nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Thus the "advice and consent" part gives the Senate power to limit the number. Look at it this way: The Senate has the power of consent. That means they can say "We will not give consent for more than nine juges, period." That's essentially what they've done.

BTW, there originally were six justices, but bumped up to nine early on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
John Roberts' Critics Outraged All Over Again
Replies
21
Views
822
publius
P
R
  • Locked
Bush says ‘diversity’ key for next top court pick
2 3
Replies
51
Views
1K
Thin Black Line
T
N
  • Locked
New Round of Speculation About Rehnquist's Farewell
Replies
6
Views
430
SUE ROVR
S
R
  • Locked
Specter: O'Connor's replacement should be like Roberts
Replies
0
Views
260
rick_reno
R
S
  • Locked
Luttig, no longer a jurist.
Replies
2
Views
369
Preacherman
P
Back
Top