NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush has recently nominated the young John Roberts to be the chief supreme court justice. At first, I thought President Bush would pick Antonin Scalia an experienced justice and an estalished conservative. As I look back, it is my belief now that President Bush chose John Roberts because he wanted him to be Rehnquist's successor, as chief justice. So Bush nominated the most unexperienced and youngest justice with the motive only to prolong the strong conservative hold on the Supreme Court.

President Bush has recently nominated the young John Roberts to be the chief supreme court justice. At first, I thought President Bush would pick Antonin Scalia an experienced justice and an estalished conservative. As I look back, it is my belief now that President Bush chose John Roberts because he wanted him to be Rehnquist's successor, as chief justice. So Bush nominated the most unexperienced and youngest justice with the motive only to prolong the strong conservative hold on the Supreme Court.
Perhaps. This is well within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, and Judge Roberts seems to be relatively well qualified. I fail to see a problem here.

Actually, there is a problem. This is about the 3rd thread on this same topic.

Roberts is hardly very conservative.

He's a mild conservative.

Roberts follows the law first and foremost. He'd be a solid choice; we need younger people with more modern ideas and able to apply them to the modern world.

Ideally, I want justices whose ideology comes from a post Vietnam, post Roe V. Wade era, because they are most in tune with the modern world.

Bush promoted roberts because bush is an idiot.

Bush promoted roberts because bush is an idiot.

Well, you sure convinced me. I'll just tear up my L'il Neocons' membership card and donate my life's savings to MoveOn.Org

Wow! An idiot! I never thought of it that way, but now that I do, it makes perfect sense! Why, oh why didn't I see this before! You have convinced me, sir and/or madam! Of course! I see what I must do now! I must leave the Repblican party, shave my head, become a vegan, and bow to a statue of Michael Moore five times daily while

<pop!>

I'd go on like this, but I can't because my Sarcasmo-Generator (TM) just overloaded.

Seriously, I like Roberts as I liked Rehnquist. You should never ever put a partisan in a nonelective position- the temptation to legislate by judicial fiat is too great. No Scalias. No Ginsbergs, either. Roe v. Wade was a travesty of justice because it was handed down by judicial fiat, illegaly ("penumbras ad emanations", anyone?).

Let Bush appoint as Chief Justice someone who willinterpret the law as written by elective legislators, not someone who will deface the Constitution with a Crayon to fit his or her ideological needs.

Even if those ideological needs jive with mine- I just don't like it.

Robert's seems to be a more fitting choice to replace Rehnquist than O'Connor. For several reasons including philosophical similarities. Beyond desiring to make the court led by a conservative for thirty years, he probably also wanted to get a Chief Justice in the spot as soon as possible, and with Roberts hearings well on their way, it's just a bit quicker.

(don't forget, selecting a Chief Justice from outside of the Court is far more traditional than selecting one from inside the Court)

Roberts seems to be an extremely inoffensive, low profile candidate for the Supreme Court. He could be another David Souter, and if we give him the highest judicial post in the land, the Bush Admin. will suffer a mini-revolt in Washington.

Bush's stated reason is a lot simpler than any of that. O'Connor's retirement doesn't go into effect until her successor is confirmed by the Senate. If Roberts is confirmed as Chief Justice, there will still be nine justices on the court, with a conservative majority. If Roberts were still to replace O'Connor, there's little chance that another Justice would be approved in time for the Court's next session, which would leave a 4-4 split on the court, and ties go to the lower court decision. Bush would, understandably, rather have a conservative majority on the court than a split, and this is a way to do it.

As far as elevating one of the other justices, that wasn't really feasible either, as it requires a confirmation hearing as well, and let's just say that the Democrats in the Senate have a few bones to pick with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy--getting one from outside is far easier.

This may make it harder for the democrats to oppose Roberts, smart political idiot.