I can not believe that Bush would do something like this. This guy has NO experience whatsoever. Has someone from outside the court ever been elevated to Chief Justice before? I would have supported the nomination of Roberts to be associate judge, but now I just can't support him. This guy has no experience in the Court. Any thoughts?
Originally posted by socialist1917I agree!
I can not believe that Bush would do something like this. This guy has NO experience whatsoever. Has someone from outside the court ever been elevated to Chief Justice before? I would have supported the nomination of Roberts to be associate judge, but now I just can't support him. This guy has no experience in the Court. Any thoughts?
Kelly
Don't know if it's been done before, well, at least once for sure but the 1st one don't count.
I suspect Bush decided to go this way to avoid the total polarization issue as much as possible. The seated Justices have all been labeled either liberal or conservative. He wouldn't under any circumstances nominate a liberal. He can 'kill 2 birds with one stone; if he gets Roberts thru, and he probably will IMO. Roberts has plenty of experence as a Judge, just not on the Supreme Court. He is tagged as a conservative already. The man he would replace was a conservative also.
It will be quite a fight in Congress. I expect Ted Kennedy will be trundled out for his overdue drunken rant.
Should be some good entertainment on CSPAN.
Originally posted by socialist1917Damn, the guys he has working for his political wing are geniuses (no joke). It's a brilliant move; Roberts was already virtually certain to be confirmed and it will be easier for Bush to get an EVEN MORE ideological conservative into an associate Justice position than into the Chief Justice position. Or he can put his ole buddy Gonzales in whose stature wouldn't meet the requirements of a Chief Justice but would as an Associate Justice (many of whom had little or no judicial experience). My hat is off to these SOBS.
I can not believe that Bush would do something like this. This guy has NO experience whatsoever. Has someone from outside the court ever been elevated to Chief Justice before? I would have supported the nomination of Roberts to be associate judge, but now I just can't support him. This guy has no experience in the Court. Any thoughts?
Watching the News on TV. Apparently non Justices have been nominated quite often.
The best reason i've heard so far for the nomination is to avoid 3 seperate hearings in Congress. This way it will only require 2. Had Bush nominated 2 for the Supreme Court and then one of the sitting Justices for the Chief Justice it would require 3 seperate hearings.
Originally posted by jammerIn fact looking through the Chief Justices at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/
Watching the News on TV. Apparently non Justices have been nominated quite often.
The best reason i've heard so far for the nomination is to avoid 3 seperate hearings in Congress. This way it will only require 2. Had Bush nominated 2 for the Supreme Court and then one of the sitting Justices for the Chief Justice it would require 3 seperate hearings.
only 4 of the 16 who served in that position were promoted from within the Court.
Originally posted by socialist1917Just one thought...
I can not believe that Bush would do something like this. This guy has NO experience whatsoever. Has someone from outside the court ever been elevated to Chief Justice before? I would have supported the nomination of Roberts to be associate judge, but now I just can't support him. This guy has no experience in the Court. Any thoughts?
Your support is not necessary.
Originally posted by no1marauderThats interesting. I never really knew that. Still, I don't think this guy has what it takes to be Chief Justice. He was just recently appointed to his current position. It could have been worse. Scalia could've been nominated to be Chief Justice.
In fact looking through the Chief Justices at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/
only 4 of the 16 who served in that position were promoted from within the Court.
Originally posted by socialist1917What does it take, in your opinion, to be adequately qualified for Chief Justice?
Thats interesting. I never really knew that. Still, I don't think this guy has what it takes to be Chief Justice. He was just recently appointed to his current position. It could have been worse. Scalia could've been nominated to be Chief Justice.
Originally posted by socialist1917Roberts has two years judicial experience. Rehnquist had no prior judicial experience when he was appointed Chief Justice. Further, Roberts has a combined twenty-two years of experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices on the Supreme Court have an average of 8 years experience as practicing lawyers. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, and has argued 39 cases before the S.C., winning 25. Finally, all the S.C. justices think Roberts is qualified. So, I fail to see a problem here. What's scary is that Roberts is an originalist about Constitutional interpretation (like Scalia and Thomas and Rehnquist), and that he is very, very smart. If you think you have a right to privacy, you have reason to fear Roberts' appointment to the S.C.
It takes experience. The more experience a justice has, the better the quality of his opinions.
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with your argument, but however, Rehnquist was an associate justice first, right? When I refer to "experience" I am referring to his experience as a judge, not an attorney. I just feel with these vacancies, the whole face of the Supreme Court could be changed for the next thirty years. A conservative court will become yet another tool for the right wing. All three branches of government will be controlled by conservatives. What ever happened to checks and balances?
Roberts has two years judicial experience. Rehnquist had no prior judicial experience when he was appointed Chief Justice. Further, Roberts has a combined twenty-two years of experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices on the Supreme Court have an average of 8 years experience as practicing lawyers. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, and has argued ...[text shortened]... you think you have a right to privacy, you have reason to fear Roberts' appointment to the S.C.
What ever happened to "checks and balances?"
The total breakdown of the Democrat Party.
I agree that we need 2 strong political Parties.
We just don't have them right now. The Dems slid way too far Left for mainstream America and refuse to budge from there intrenched positions ... thus, total dominance by the Republicans.
The silent majority of Americans speak mainly at the ballotbox.