NationStates Jolt Archive

First, let me express my sorrow in the passing of a great Chief Justice. He will be missed.

However, life must go on, so, while trying not to be ghoulish, I am interested in how the nomination(s) to SCOTUS will play out. If you would, separate your prediction from your desired outcome.

My prediction is Kennedy is elevated to Chief, with a woman nominated as his replacement - Edith Clement, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Maura Corrigan.

Being a conservative, my hope would be Thomas or Scalia to Chief, with their replacement being Janet Rogers Brown.

You could make this a poll with two choices: Scalia and Thomas; because everyone knows they are not going to put any one even remotely moderate or liberal in the Chief Justice position.

You could make this a poll with two choices: Scalia and Thomas; because everyone knows they are not going to put any one even remotely moderate or liberal in the Chief Justice position.
I didn't put up a poll, because I am interested in the whole picture: who will be elevated to Chief, and who will be nominated to fill the vacancy. Chief Justices, historically, have sometimes come from outside sources.

Anybody want to give me long odds on Katherine Harris?

The answer depends on if Bush can find a pet candidate who can make his dreams of turning America into Jesusland/The Republic of Gilead come true.

Look, I am just interested in people's predictions vs their wishes on the SCOTUS changes - not in flaming liberal or conservative philosophies. I'm still waiting.

The answer depends on if Bush can find a pet candidate who can make his dreams of turning America into Jesusland/The Republic of Gilead come true.
Now that you've injected your flame, would you care to actually stick to the thread topic? Prediction vs wish for on SCOTUS?

Brown for the candidate, nominate Roberts for chief. Or Brown, both tend to be constructionist so it's all good.

Now that you've injected your flame, would you care to actually stick to the thread topic? Prediction vs wish for on SCOTUS?
he's a professional troll, why get antsy over it?

he's a professional troll, why get antsy over it?
Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the tip. I'm experiencing a monster head cold, with a headache so bad that the 4 ibuprofens I took have barely touched it, so my sense of humor has taken a holiday. :(

Now that you've injected your flame, would you care to actually stick to the thread topic? Prediction vs wish for on SCOTUS?

Nobody liberal or even moderate is going to have a shot at making it into the Supreme Court. And as for filling in the vacancies, Bush might pick Scalia or Thomas to become Chief Justice and fill the slot he leaves behind with another Fundie.

Brown for the candidate, nominate Roberts for chief. Or Brown, both tend to be constructionist so it's all good.
You don't think he'll elevate a sitting member like Scalia or Thomas? Or even Kennedy?

Nominating Kennedy might be clever, seeing as putting a moderate force in charge, clearing the way for a more conservative replacement to Rehnquist.

I don't know too much about the judicial system. I figure that I only have to know if I ever need it. However, I do know a bit about the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas will be elevated to Chief Justice, being the most conservative member of that bench. I expect his confirmation to be easy, as he is already a justice. The Chief Justice has only a few more powers than the associates.

I don't know too much about the judicial system. I figure that I only have to know if I ever need it. However, I do know a bit about the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas will be elevated to Chief Justice, being the most conservative member of that bench. I expect his confirmation to be easy, as he is already a justice. The Chief Justice has only a few more powers than the associates.
Why Thomas instead of Scalia? Because of his race? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has heavily criticized Thomas, while actually grudgingly acknowledging Scalia as a "smart guy".

Why Thomas instead of Scalia? Because of his race? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has heavily criticized Thomas, while actually grudgingly acknowledging Scalia as a "smart guy".
I think it'd be unfortunate if Thomas's race becomes an issue. But I prefer Thomas over Scalia because Scalia just doesn't have the ideaological passion that Thomas does. Granted, that lack of passion works as an ordinary judge, but it doesn't as Chief Justice of the United States.

You don't think he'll elevate a sitting member like Scalia or Thomas? Or even Kennedy?

Probability dictates that a new nominee will be chief. Since you have to have an extra hearing to move a judge from assoc. to chief if it's not a new one, might as well just nominate one of the new ones to the spot.

I think it'd be unfortunate if Thomas's race becomes an issue. But I prefer Thomas over Scalia because Scalia just doesn't have the ideaological passion that Thomas does. Granted, that lack of passion works as an ordinary judge, but it doesn't as Chief Justice of the United States.
I don't know, especially as a judge, if "passion" is a quality looked for by the Senate, or the American people, in a Justic of SCOTUS, Chief or no. It's definitely something looked for in a President of member of Congress, but often disparaged as a quality in a judge, though, personally, I would like to see more passion in the judiciary.

It's gonna be tough, the Chief Justice slot is going to be hard to fill so it's going to have to be a promotion from the USSC (I doubt that Robert's name is going to be withdrawn from O'Connor's seat and put up for Rhenquist's assome suggest, I'm pretty sure the political situation requires nominating an associate). I think you are right about it being Kennedy, although Scalia might be Bush's choice, Kenedy is a better shot for a less controversial confirmation and Bush is going to need the politcal capital for his nominee to replace whoever replaces Rhenquist. In a slightly less hostile enviroment Bush might try to cut a deal where Stevens takes Chief and his replacement gets less scrutiny, but Bush would be an idiot to trust the Democrats. It was pretty much agreed that Rhenquist's replacement would be a woman a while ago in the backroom politics. Williams maybe? Too early to make a serious prediction, the WH is not going to run this as a package deal and the Roberts' nomination is going to be taken as a bellweather for the others.

Probability dictates that a new nominee will be chief. Since you have to have an extra hearing to move a judge from assoc. to chief if it's not a new one, might as well just nominate one of the new ones to the spot.
But, since a sitting member has already been confirmed, it would be much harder to say that Justice was not qualified. The vetting process would be much quicker.

I don't know, especially as a judge, if "passion" is a quality looked for by the Senate, or the American people, in a Justic of SCOTUS, Chief or no. It's definitely something looked for in a President of member of Congress, but often disparaged as a quality in a judge, though, personally, I would like to see more passion in the judiciary.
You're right, but as I see it, the Chief Justice is a mostly symbolic position. At the very least, let's have a judge who has an idea of what the constitution ought to be interpreted as. It gives a sense of purpose to the judiciary, unlike Reinquist, who seemed to uphold the status quo in his later years. Then again, I guess a justice just looses vigor as he/she ages.

It's gonna be tough, the Chief Justice slot is going to be hard to fill so it's going to have to be a promotion from the USSC (I doubt that Robert's name is going to be withdrawn from O'Connor's seat and put up for Rhenquist's assome suggest, I'm pretty sure the political situation requires nominating an associate). I think you are right about it being Kennedy, although Scalia might be Bush's choice, Kenedy is a better shot for a less controversial confirmation and Bush is going to need the politcal capital for his nominee to replace whoever replaces Rhenquist. In a slightly less hostile enviroment Bush might try to cut a deal where Stevens takes Chief and his replacement gets less scrutiny, but Bush would be an idiot to trust the Democrats. It was pretty much agreed that Rhenquist's replacement would be a woman a while ago in the backroom politics. Williams maybe? Too early to make a serious prediction, the WH is not going to run this as a package deal and the Roberts' nomination is going to be taken as a bellweather for the others.
Interesting. By the way, what is "the WH"? And who is Williams? I'm fighting a head cold, so forgive me if I've missed something here.

First, let me express my sorrow in the passing of a great Chief Justice. He will be missed.

However, life must go on, so, while trying not to be ghoulish, I am interested in how the nomination(s) to SCOTUS will play out. If you would, separate your prediction from your desired outcome.

My prediction is Kennedy is elevated to Chief, with a woman nominated as his replacement - Edith Clement, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Maura Corrigan.

Being a conservative, my hope would be Thomas or Scalia to Chief, with their replacement being Janet Rogers Brown.
I don't have a prediction or a wish other than you take sex out of the issue.

Thomas for Chief Justice. Probaly a woman to replace Thomas.

I think it'd be unfortunate if Thomas's race becomes an issue. But I prefer Thomas over Scalia because Scalia just doesn't have the ideaological passion that Thomas does. Granted, that lack of passion works as an ordinary judge, but it doesn't as Chief Justice of the United States.
Now to me, that seems like the kind of quality you don't want an impartial judge to have.

Interesting. By the way, what is "the WH"? And who is Williams? I'm fighting a head cold, so forgive me if I've missed something here.
WH = White House
Williams =Ann Williams, 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Considered socially liberal yet anti-government and federalist enough to get past the GOP. She is a fallback, and a lot depends on how Roberts' nomination goes, if it gets really nasty with Roe v. Wade becoming a nasty to the max issue, then Williams is a possible. Not a first choice of Bush, but might be a necessary choice depending on how charged the situation is after Roberts.

Now to me, that seems like the kind of quality you don't want an impartial judge to have.
And yet I don't want him impartial. I want him, and any other judges, to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution.

And yet I don't want him impartial. I want him, and any other judges, to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution.LOL. you just reminded me of the famous Holmes-Hand exchange. I always found that one funny, Holmes really had a great way of summarizing the law.

WH = White House
Williams =Ann Williams, 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Considered socially liberal yet anti-government and federalist enough to get past the GOP. She is a fallback, and a lot depends on how Roberts' nomination goes, if it gets really nasty with Roe v. Wade becoming a nasty to the max issue, then Williams is a possible. Not a first choice of Bush, but might be a necessary choice depending on how charged the situation is after Roberts.
That's the first I've heard of Ann Williams. Any other news outlets mentioning her name?

Also, if she's socially liberal, she probably won't get past the GOP, much less the Senate as a whole.

You're right, but as I see it, the Chief Justice is a mostly symbolic position. At the very least, let's have a judge who has an idea of what the constitution ought to be interpreted as. It gives a sense of purpose to the judiciary, unlike Reinquist, who seemed to uphold the status quo in his later years. Then again, I guess a justice just looses vigor as he/she ages.
Wrong wrong wrong. First, the chief justice decides who writes what opinion. That is key, Roe v. Wade could have been decided on any number of different grounds, not the one that enumerated the right to privacy, and second, he lays down the rules for the admission of evidence in courts/procedure, which is an extremely powerful tool.

Nominations to the high bench tend to be very bitter, for example the first ever judicial filibuster was used by the Republicans against the nomination of associate justice Abe Fortas to the position.

And yet I don't want him impartial. I want him, and any other judges, to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
Even the oldest member of the court isn't old enough to know what a strict interpretation of the Constitution should be.

That's the first I've heard of Ann Williams. Any other news outlets mentioning her name?

Also, if she's socially liberal, she probably won't get past the GOP, much less the Senate as a whole.
Schumer put her up as a possible. She's not on the first pass list because of her social liberalness.

As for getting past the GOP and senate, her social liberalness will lose her, maybe, the 20 GOP senators for whom conservative social issues are decisive and definetely gain her the half-dozen GOP senators for whom liberal social issues are decisive and hopefully gain her enough Democrats for whom conservative social issues are not decisive to make up for it. Besides, if it gets really nasty by the time she gets through the nomination procedure she will have been painted as far to the right of Robert Byrd on social issues.

Schumer put her up as a possible. She's not on the first pass list because of her social liberalness.

As for getting past the GOP and senate, her social liberalness will lose her, maybe, the 20 GOP senators for whom conservative social issues are decisive and definetely gain her the half-dozen GOP senators for whom liberal social issues are decisive and hopefully gain her enough Democrats for whom conservative social issues are not decisive to make up for it. Besides, if it gets really nasty by the time she gets through the nomination procedure she will have been painted as far to the right of Robert Byrd on social issues.
If GW were running for reelection, I don't think such a candidate would even be considered. This will be a test, as far as the social conservatives (translation: religious right) are concerned, over just how genuinely concerned the Republican party is about their issues. Such a candidate for SCOTUS might very well lose them the WH the next time around.

Wrong wrong wrong. First, the chief justice decides who writes what opinion. That is key, Roe v. Wade could have been decided on any number of different grounds, not the one that enumerated the right to privacy, and second, he lays down the rules for the admission of evidence in courts/procedure, which is an extremely powerful tool.

Nominations to the high bench tend to be very bitter, for example the first ever judicial filibuster was used by the Republicans against the nomination of associate justice Abe Fortas to the position.
You seem so strong aout it, but the procedure in the USSC for determining who writes the opinion is that the seniormost member of the majority writes it, not someone selected by the Chief Justice.

You seem so strong aout it, but the procedure in the USSC for determining who writes the opinion is that the seniormost member of the majority writes it, not someone selected by the Chief Justice.
Wrong.
"In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties:

* If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice."

While I would have expected that Scalia would the bush's pick, the new by the bush administration on minorities would also allow me to think that his replacement will in fact be Thomas, being that there are no conservative females in the court right now.

While I would have expected that Scalia would the bush's pick, the new by the bush administration on minorities would also allow me to think that his replacement will in fact be Thomas, being that there are no conservative females in the court right now.

If GW were running for reelection, I don't think such a candidate would even be considered. This will be a test, as far as the social conservatives (translation: religious right) are concerned, over just how genuinely concerned the Republican party is about their issues. Such a candidate for SCOTUS might very well lose them the WH the next time around.
Maybe, but it depends on the Roberts confirmation. If Roberts goes through a really nasty confirmation hearing with abortion being a major source of nastiness, then the RR will just have to accept that the GOP cannot afford to spend the political capital to cater to them - and if they require more than that then the GOP is going decide they are not worth the cost and jetison them.

In the political calculus right now, the GOP is less worried about meeting every whim of the RR than retaining the libertarian wing, the RR is not going to vote Democratic for the next decade and enough momentum is behind the GOP=conservative social values that the GOP can count of the RR holding it's nose and voting for a GOP canidate for at least one election. Pushing a federalist would be enough of a sop to the libertarians to at least keep them from defecting and would really shore up the federalists. But that's party politics and while the party may prefer one thing, it is the president who does the nominating.

But, since a sitting member has already been confirmed, it would be much harder to say that Justice was not qualified. The vetting process would be much quicker.
Only if he picked Kennedy. If he nominated Scalia or Thomas the Dems would put on their biggest hissy fit yet.

just another crazy jesus person :D

I really need to get to amsterdam asap

Anybody want to give me long odds on Katherine Harris?
3,000,000 to 1.

Janice Rogers Brown would be a pick that would assuage the right, and send the left into conniptions.

I don't think it really matters who they replace Rehnquist with. You couldn't find a more conservative judge if you tried anyway than Rehnquist. He was one of the only two dissenting opinions in the landmark 1973 Roe. vs. Wade decision. So, they could put Pat Robertson in his place and you'd get the same result.

I want Alex Kozinksi, but that's not going to happen.