End-running America.

[Warriorbird]

Roberts for Chief Justice.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

[Gan]

While I agree that a judge should be nominated based on his credentials... I dont agree with bumping up the nomination to chief justice.

Bush just secured Roberts NOT making it onto the bench in my opinion. Bad choice. The Chief Justice spot needs to be promoted from within.

[Latrinsorm]

While I was a bit surprised at the move as well, I'd hardly consider it an "end run". It's not like Bush is tricking Congress into thinking that they're voting on an associate justice and after they confirm him he'll go "Thanks for letting CHIEF Justice Roberts in, LOSERS!!"

[Artha]

ROFL BUSH IS LIKE JOHN ADAMS!!!11!

[Rainy Day]

I don't think I'd call it "end-running". But I do find the idea extremely bothersome. Why is someone who has only been on the bench for two years being nominated to the highest seat in the country? Either a more experienced outside judge should be nominated for the seat or one of the already sitting justices should be. I can't imagine being a judge for the supreme court for a long time...and then some newbie gets that job instead? I realize some of it's a timing issue, but this is a bad move. Not because of political issues, but because of experience issues.

RD

[Apotheosis]

Maybe this has something to do with having multiple seats vacant?

IE: Sandra Day O'connor's retirement is conditional in that a replacement is found. With Rehnquist's death, it seems to me that finding a replacement for both is going to be difficult, therefore, Robert's as the Chief will allow for more time to find a replacement for O'connor.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Yswithe
Maybe this has something to do with having multiple seats vacant?

IE: Sandra Day O'connor's retirement is conditional in that a replacement is found. With Rehnquist's death, it seems to me that finding a replacement for both is going to be difficult, therefore, Robert's as the Chief will allow for more time to find a replacement for O'connor.

If the issue is trying to find a Supreme Justice you nominate from within the court, minimize scrutiny, and try to get your guy Roberts through his hearings.

And wasn't this the administration that publicly bitch-slapped John Edwards for a lack of experience while he was running for a 4 year appointment to be the most useless man in Washington? Now they're offering Roberts as their suggestion for a life-time post? Talk about your flip-flops. How this administration's wide-ranging hypocrisy isn't biting them in the ass right now is a miracle only Karl Rove and ParkBandit understand.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Keller
If the issue is trying to find a Supreme Justice you nominate from within the court, minimize scrutiny, and try to get your guy Roberts through his hearings.

And wasn't this the administration that publicly bitch-slapped John Edwards for a lack of experience while he was running for a 4 year appointment to be the most useless man in Washington? Now they're offering Roberts as their suggestion for a life-time post? Talk about your flip-flops. How this administration's wide-ranging hypocrisy isn't biting them in the ass right now is a miracle only Karl Rove and ParkBandit understand.

Roberts is MORE than qualified for Chief Justice... and then some. Have you looked at that guy's credentials? Impeccable.

BUT.. I too was surprised by this move. I would have thought Bush would have promoted one of the other conservative justices to that position, thus getting Roberts confirmed easier and moving one into the Chief's spot. This will certainly make Roberts' confirmation much more lengthy.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Roberts is MORE than qualified for Chief Justice... and then some. Have you looked at that guy's credentials? Impeccable.

BUT.. I too was surprised by this move. I would have thought Bush would have promoted one of the other conservative justices to that position, thus getting Roberts confirmed easier and moving one into the Chief's spot. This will certainly make Roberts' confirmation much more lengthy.

Let's see. He graduated from Harvard Law -- which is like dating the ugly Dixie Chick of the big 3 law schools. He clerked for the supreme court and worked in a couple of recent republican administrations. There is no doubt that Roberts is a brilliant man who will no doubt be a great justice. My complaint is that he is an inexperienced judge in comparison to the other candidates available. Added to that is your argument that it'd be easier to affirm Scalia as CJ than trying to force the issue with Roberts. It just seems like Bush is stirring up the pot and I don't think he's going to like the stew.

[Ashemu]

This choice isn't very surprising, in the last analysis.

Bush is going to have his hands full dealing with Katrina and its aftermath. He wants to appoint a conservative judge to the post, but his favorites (Scalia and Thomas) are sure to stir up a hotbed of controversy if nominated. It will be easier to sell Roberts to Congress.

[Tromp]

Smart nomination since Roberts is fairly young and will guarantee a conservative chief justice for many years to come. Republican Party are quite clever folk <applauds>.

[ElanthianSiren]

A court student friend of mine told me something interesting. He said: as the bench is a lifetime appointment, O'Connor may choose to pull her resignation any time she likes.

If Bush is banking on that occurring, I can see him appointing Roberts to secure the highest conservative seat (as someone else mentioned). Even if she doesn't remove her resignation, I can see him doing this to say "We appointed a moderate into the highest seat! It's perfectly reasonable to have a far right leaning judge next."

Also, many of Roberts' credentials we do not know, in actuality, as the administration refuses to release them. I understand why they won't, (administration has said many times it's client confidentiality), but it simply looks bad on Roberts when people don't know where he stands, as per real arguments he's had on abortion. With regard to this issue: all we really know is that he's married to a very right wing anti-abortion woman; that in fact, makes his stance look worse, at least to me.

-M

ps. Abortion is the flash point for me, and I tend not to believe that Roberts will not errode the right to one. I doubt the supreme court will repeal Roe V. Wade, but making abortions basically inaccessable to those who need them most, (high school students come to mind), by upholding unconstitutional state laws, is unacceptable IMO.

edited to fix a spelling error


[Edited on Tue, September th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Keller]

O'Conner was tabbed as a conservative when she was appointed. I don't think this is a coup at all for conservatives. They were set to replace O'Conner with Roberts. Now they've replaced Rehnquist with Roberts and the left wont let us forget that in coming months. The logic is that since Roberts, a conservative, replaced Rehnquist, a conservative, we need a liberal to replace O'Conner. Had they gone forward with Roberts as an associate the administration would have a much better chance of putting another moderate if not a conservative on the court to replace Rehnquist.