Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AuH2ORepublican
Interestingly enough, Bush could have moved the court to the right simply by sticking his original plan -- having Roberts replace O'Connor as associate justice. After Rehnquist's death, Bush could have elevated Thomas to CJ. Roberts would have certainly been more conservative than O'Connor, and Thomas would have continued Rehnquist's unshakeable conservative leadership. Of course, knowing what we know now, Roberts would be out of the question after his Obamacare decisions.

I'm surprised we don't choose Justices the way we choose Presidents -- elevate STATE supreme court justices with great track records on constitional questions instead of elevating career federal judges who live in the beltway.

The fact a judge claims their "judicial philosophy" is "originalism" or whatever, has proven to be effectively useless. Most of the Burger court Republicans inventing new "rights" out of thin air were supposedly "strict constructionsts" when they were placed on the court.

180 posted on 06/27/2015 9:01:46 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: BillyBoy

There’s only one problem with your alternative history: Bush wanted Roberts as CJ all along. Had Roberts been confirmed as an AJ prior to Rehnquist’s death, Bush still would have nominated Roberts for CJ.

As for why residents don’t nominate state supreme court justices to SCOTUS, one of the main reasons is that few prominent state supreme court justices are as young as prominent judges in the federal judiciary that end up in SCOTUS shortlists. That’s one of the problems with lifetime appointments for SCOTUS; presidents rarely name anyone 60 or older because the you ger the nominee the longer he’ll be on the Court. Personally, I support the constitutional amendment that has been discussed for several years (and that Rick Perry recently touted) to make SCOTUS tems last 18 years (with a vacancy every two years), which would eliminate the disincentive to nominating a 65-year-old to SCOTUS.


182 posted on 06/27/2015 10:43:16 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson