Skip to comments.Bush to Nominate Roberts for Chief Justice
Posted on 09/05/2005 4:39:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
Newsreaders on FoxNews just said a 'Senior administration spokesman' has said Bush plans to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice position.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I think you are right.
This is a simple solution, so I'm sure it's wrong somehow. Someone please explain why.
Not so sure about that. They just said it's rare to promote from within; only been done 3 times in the past.
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Moving swiftly, President Bush will nominate John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, a senior administration source said Monday.
The president was to make the announcement in the Oval Office before leaving for another trip to the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast.
Bush met with Roberts at the White House on Sunday evening for about a half an hour and then offered him the top position at the Supreme Court on Monday morning, the administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because Bush had not announced his selection.
I kinda thought W would go for three, just to tweak their noses.
Should be Scalia... Not sure what to think of this.
Please, for the court-challenged, explain.
The CJ decides who writes the decisions. What else do they do?
Now Bush has the chance to have a other woman take "O'Connors place.
"We don't know enough abuot Roberts" ??? Freepers are beginning to sound like Democrats. That's their reasoning for opposing him - but it doesn't make sense because the Dem's vehement opposition suggests otherwise. They indeed do know about Roberts and they do not like the thought of him being on the court at all. It seeme that we conservatives can infer some positive attributes to Judge Roberts merely by the tone and nature of his enemies.
I cannot give the radical liberals on the Senate Judicial committee that much credit with trying to pull a Bre'r Rabbit on us.
Does anyone know if it is really true that all SC Justices wrote notes of condolence, or perhaps it was formal statements, concerning the death of Judge Rhenqiust; except Souter?
I think he is about the same age as Rehnquist was when he was nominated for CJ?
The choice is up to President Bush. If he picks John Roberts for CJ, that's that. Now if Roberts turns out to be another William Rehnquist, conservatives have nothing to worry about.
It does matter. And especially to you.
This is a forum of ideas. (as I know you are fully aware) People do not need to agree, but you, I and every other member of FR need to do it.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that :)
His agenda is in enough trouble as it is. He doesn't need a war over this, especially when it isn't necessary. Thomas and Scalia are on the bench, they're staying on the bench. Being Chief Justice doesn't enhance or detract from their ability to influence decisions. Put Roberts in as Chief Justice, appoint an Associate Lustice, and get on with things.
CNN ^ | September 4, 2005 | CNN (CNN) -- The Supreme Court released statements by seven Supreme Court justices who paid tribute to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died Saturday. A statement from Justice David Souter is not expected, the court said. Justice John Paul Stevens: "William Rehnquist's independent, impartial and dedicated leadership of the Supreme Court has been an inspiration to those of us privileged to serve with him -- and to the entire nation as well. Charles Evans Hughes, a great chief justice whom he particularly admired, would have been proud of the example he set as the leader of the court. "He was truly...
I'd prefer Scalia.
This means several things:
1) Bush wants to appoint a woman or minority to the bench without making that person CJ.
2) Bush wants O'Connor to stay until both nominees are approved (her vacancy will now likely remain unfilled past the October 3rd start of the session)
3)Luttig will not be picked (he would have been picked for CJ if he was the guy)