Rest in peace, Chief. frown

[ September 04, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

This is going to be interesting to say the least... eek!

What a week this has been in general.

This will be interesting. Bush still has to push through the Edwards nomination and nominate a new chief justice. I wonder if the Senate will first to it in order, or try to confirm the chief first, if Bush nominates soon.

Plus he and confress still has to deal with the hurricane.

It could be a blessing in disguise for Bush, there will be less focus on nominations right now as concerns are toward the relief efforts so he may be able to quickly confirm candiates in order to get on with the business at hand of rebuilding. But if he does it to quickly it will look cold and callous.

It is going to be interesting.

Theoretically it shouldn't take long. They just went through the whole proess with nominating Roberts, so it ought to be easy to go to the next on the list. And they might already have given some thought as to who would become chief justice, knowing that Rehnquist has been ill. Question is, will the new nominee be like Roberts or will it be an obvious ultra-right wacko that will take us back to the brink of the "nuclear option"?

OH FVCK!!!! This idiot president will have added 2 Supreme Court justices during his administration who will shape the land for years. I was hoping Rehnquist would hold out until after Bush's administration but I guess not. Abortions rights groups and gay activist groups I'm sure are shytting bricks right now!

Well, ain't nothin' wrong with that!

As much of a partisan as I am, my first response was sadness. Rehnquist ran a well orgainized, well thought court and will be missed.

I can't see this as a political tragedy because Bush can't really nominate anyone much more conservative than Rehnquist to replace him. My guess at this point is that he'll nominate Kennedy as Chief which should be an easy sell (this is the man that replaced Bork after all) and wait a bit to nominate another associate justice. Of course, he could just change the nominationi of Roberts from that of an associate justice to Chief Justice. I don't think it will happen, but it could.

But the most important question is will the new Chief Justice keep those wonderful chevrons on the robe?

[ September 03, 2005, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

I'll keep it to a simple rest in peace.

Susan Estrich, a flaming left-winger whom I have always liked and respected (seriously), said a few minutes ago in a phone interview on the boob tube: "I'm a liberal, and I loved the man. He was funny but ran a great court. He so loved the court, and he had a brilliant mind. Everyone who has clerked for him has said they loved him. I believe he has been one of the Court's best chief justices."

I wonder how many people realize that he opposed Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and that he also was not in favor of President Clinton's. Of course, in the latter trial he was constitutionally mandated to preside over it. As Rehnquist had always said, he believed that even though impeachment was and is a political action, it should be reserved for only the most serious of presidential transgressions.

I agree.

Wow, he really was old. wink

Come on now, Joe. He only had a year or two on you. wink

Given Bush's ongoing fall in the polls do you suppose he would be up for a battle by nominating Scalia to be the new Chief? Of course doing that would open up a third appointment for the Pres.

Nah, someone else would have to leave or die for Bush to get a third appointment. I think I remember reading (around the time O'Connor announced her retirement) that Stevens was considering stepping down (he's in his 80s, right?). That would obviously give Bush a good shot at getting another Scalia-type on the court. Not to mention we would lose one of the guys in the majority on Lawrence v. Texas.

\"Current\" SCOTUS justices.

Scalia and Kennedy are the same age. I think Bush will catch a lot of flak from his constituency if he nominates Kennedy for Chief over Scalia. Considering Bush's falling poll numbers and the malaise that seems to be affecting his party, I can't imagine that he would appoint Kennedy (who voted with the more liberal justices on Lawrence and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) over Scalia (who votes in the minority on just about everything ).

[ September 04, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Houston Gator ]

I cannot see Scalia being nominated as Chief. Not only is he a devisive political figure, but he has a reputation on the court as being difficult to work with. What I'm reading now is that of the Justices who've served during the Rehnquist court, he was the one who the Chief had the most difficulty whith from an organizational point of view. Obviously, from a legal and political point of view, they often concurred, but that's not what being Chief Justice is about, it's about getting things done, and I think everyone in Washington realizes a Scalia court would be a deadlocked court.

Thomas, of course, will not subject himself to another confirmation hearing.

Breyer, Bader-Ginsberg and Stevens are not Bush's type of Justices.

Nominating Souter will send the base up in flames.

That leaves Kennedy, Roberts or a brand new Justice, which is how it used to be done. Considering the closeness of the upcoming Judicial session, the current crises the country faces and the fact that this is the second opening on the court, I think it will be either Kennedy or Roberts with the additional Associate Justice position being filled later.

W won't elevate Anthony Kennedy, since the Catholic, Republican Californian has become the chief target of right-wing nutcases like (Catholic Republican Illinoisan-Missourian) Phyllis Schlafly.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens--absolutely not. (In my ideal scenario, Breyer, the most reasonable and moderate judge, and a brilliant legal mind, would be the Chief Justice.)

Clarence Thomas? Well, W could really send Democrats spinning by elevating him, but then I doubt Thomas wants the position.

Actually, I don't think W really cares about divisiveness at this point. Even Republicans have been attacking his incompetence of late. The only people totally standing by him are the Christian zealots and neo zombies. So what's he got to lose by pushing for Scalia? He's tanking in every way, so why wouldn't he go for bust? Scalia may be difficult to work with, but then so was Warren Burger.

He could really do himself a service with a dramatic appointment, like Rudy Giuliani, who was a distinguished prosecutor. That would completely throw commentators into confusion, take the heat off his dereliction following Hurricane Katrina, his Iraq policies, the energy crisis we're facing, and also allow Roberts to fly in under the radar, and lead many Americans, despite all evidence to the contrary, to believe that W (or one of his advisors) still has a shred of good sense.

[ September 04, 2005, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Though the Scalia comment seems particularly interesting, I tend to agree with your entire post.

I think they would have to be willing to generate a lot of controversy to push for Scalia with all the other pots on the fire now.

My question "How important is the Chief Justice?"

Not very important in the grand sceme of things (scroll down to Duties). Politically, I think the far right would find it very important.

This definitely throws a twist after everyone had pretty much calmed down about any more nominations before the next term.

It'll be interesting to see how Bush does with this. People are pretty much fed up with the fed. govt at this point with the hurricane issues, gas prices, etc.

I don't think the Democrats have much to lose on this one.....I don't know if you can really get anyone more conservative. Nominating someone uber-conservative probably wouldn't be too popular either.

Then the position is as much ceremonial as anything. Apparently the Chief Justice having control over who writes an opinion he/she agrees with can also play a 'political' role in nuancing a Court precedent.

MIB stated (and I await his dissent because hell will freeze over before he ever agrees with anything but his own mirror image):

It's not worth stating anything anymore- my likeness of the entire Outsports message board has been ruined by the arrogance and self-righteousness of certain individuals who will simply disagree for the sake of argument rather than be open to the ideas of others.

Its just not worth it.

Nah - I think he will go for a fresh minority face, he needs the public relations help, IMHO.

How can I dissent or not with your post if I don't understand it. Please clarify it so I can respond accordingly.

Thank you.

I thought it to be pretty simple. Your posts against opinions that are not in agreement with yours usually are condescending. It just brings negativity to this board and has ruined my experience here- a site where opinions of others, even those I do not agree with- are often interesting and thought provoking. Your opinions are written in a way to demean others. There is enough negativity in the world- I do not understand the need to demean others. Usually those who do are making up for a lack of confidence in their own lives.

But to be on topic, it is sad that Rehnquist died. I hope that the appointment made in his death will bring a valued and careful mind to the bench.

I don't see why you're bring this up in this thread. I simply relayed something on which Rehnquist had an opinion, that being presidential impeachment. I don't know why you felt the need to turn it into something else when all I did was state a Rehnquist personal opinion. :confused:

I should not be surprised that based on previous postings and behavior that you lack the ability to self-evaluate. I have no further comment- you will just attempt to spin it back with a condescending and self-righteous comment.

On TOPIC: I hope the replacement is a moderate female minority.

Self-evaluate what? You still haven't answered my question as to just what the heck you're talking about with respect to my original post stating Rehnquist's opinion on presidential impeachment.

[ September 04, 2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Actually, here's an even better scenario for W.

He nominates Clarence Thomas for the Chief Justice role, thus making him the President who elevated a Black person to the top post, especially at a time when his perceived actions towards poor Black Southerners in the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe have led to charges of indifference and racism. (He'd still have to deal with the fact of not taking care of the poor Whites and others who have been suffering over the last week in Mississippi, but Rove could figure out a way to deal with this.)

The Thomas choice would please his base, please some conservative Black clergy, and also take away the heat from Roberts. Opponents of Thomas would be called racist; calling him a bad jurist would lead to charges of racism, so the whole cynical process would work to W's favor, as it did for his father with Thomas. Condi, maybe Colin Powell, and others would sing his praises. The Democrats are incapable of fighting multiple battles and some, like Bayh, were already caving in, so Roberts gets his seat without a problem. Thus you have two ultraconservatives on the court, one replacing a moderate.

Then W gets another seat by elevating Thomas (as Thurgood Marshall flipped in his grave), so he could then appoint Gonzales, and hit a triple, becoming the first president to seat a Latino on the nation's highest court. With Thomas pleasing the base and Roberts pleasing most conservatives and probably going out of his way not to stir up Democrats, Gonzales would probably also not encounter much questioning beyond his role in the torture memos. He'd probably also get two Democratic Senate votes, from Obama and Salazar, who have voted for almost every nominee of color that W has put forward, and all the Repugs would vote for him, so W would have his trifecta. W could also appoint a right-wing female judge, and would probably also get her on the court. Any Democrat (or the odd Republican) who voted against her would be labeled anti-woman, etc.

Maybe Rove is thinking along these lines. He probably also knows that the grafitti is on the wall about W's and the Repugs' sinking poll numbers. His best bet is to get all three confirmed swiftly, just in case the Repugs lose the Senate next year. It didn't seem possible before, but supposedly John Kyl, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, and Mike DeWine are all in trouble; it's not just Rick Santorum who could lose his seat in a voter revolt. Rove could pull off the Thomas-Roberts-Gonzalez/Jones, etc. trifecta easily by next summer.

The one wrench in the cogs is Kennedy. If he continues to move to more moderate positions, he gives the moderate-liberal faction five votes, with an occasional vote for the right-leaning side.

[ September 04, 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas, with all that's going on, do you think W really wants to spend political capital on three confirmation hearings? Thomas's elevation to Chief Justice would be less of a cake walk then you make it sound. During Thomas's initial confirmation people were willing to face accusations of racism in criticising him then--you don't think white dem politicians won't have the gumption to do it again? I doubt even Obama would rubber stamp Thomas's elevation (thus blunting any race-baiting). Besides, Bush has said that he would quickly make a choice, and your plan involves lengthy back room machinations.

Additionally, I don't think anyone is all that impressed with Thomas's skills as a jurist. I'm not saying that Thomas is incompetent, far from it. Though I can't stand his political leanings, his opinions are usually clear and well-reasoned. Rather it strikes me as odd that the Chief Justice would be a guy whose opinions are not that remarkable, and who barely says a word during oral arguments. Rehnquist clearly articulated his jurisprudential vision in a way that I find lacking in Thomas.

I think the far more likely scenario is that Bush picks Gonzales directly for the slot. He is younger than Thomas (so would have a longer lasting impact as chief). And I suspect that Thomas would rather not get involved in another confirmation hearing. Bush seems quite loyal to his friends, so this is a way of rewarding Gonzales.

[ September 04, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Neptune, I respectfully disagree that he will choose Gonzales. This would result in a firestorm of protest from his conservative base, as they view Alberto as too liberal on social issues.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see Bush pick Estrada, who withdrew his own nomination? The same battles over it would probably erupt, but this time the GOP would have the so-called nuclear option as a weapon if the Dems somehow consider Estrada an "extraordinary circumstance" as mentioned in that deal earlier this summer and decide to filibuster him.

Tim Russert raising this on Meet the Press this morning and Lanny Davis later said on Fox News that George Bush should nominate someone from the moderate, center of the country because of the hurricane. This follows Susan Estrich’s claim last evening that the seat should be filled by Edith Clement because she is a woman, and from Louisiana. I’ve heard of the supposed woman and minority seats on the court, but a hurricane seat? These commentators make clear that hurricanes aren’t the only things full of ill wind.

Within the context of SCOTUS nominations, I don't think anyone can get a clear read on Bush's relationship with his conservative base, since it's not like he has to worry about running for reelection at this point. Estrada would make the base happy, but the confirmation battle over him would take way more time then Bush is comfortable with, and it is unlikely that he wants to have a court with a 4-4 split on the controversial cases coming up this term. And I don't think you should underestimate Bush's loyalty to the people who have stuck with him. For what its worth, the NY Times reported that privately Bush initially wanted to pick Gonzales to succeed O'Connor, but was eventually convinced that he would have an additional chance to select him for the Court.

Honestly, if all other factors are equal, I have no problem with Edith Clement's tie to Louisiana as being one of the factors for her selection, if only for the feel good notion of a local daughter on the rise. She was already on the earlier short list, so it's not like she would be an totally arbitrary selection.

[ September 04, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

To ammend my earlier scenario, I think Gonzales is the only candidate out there that would make a viable Chief Justice nomination from outside the current court. He's been on the Texas Supreme Court (not sure if he ever served as Chief Justice). He has more judicial experience than Roberts and is close to the President. Notice that those who were not close to him didn't make it into the second term: Colin Powell, John Ashcroft. While those close to him not only made it to the second term, but some got promotions like Rice. I can see Bush nominating Gonzales to the Chief's position, but I'm still not sure he's going to nominate him at all.

According to CNN, Bush will now nominate John Roberts to be Chief Justice of Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor would apparently continue in her role until another nominee can be named for Associate Justice.

Roberts it is. Good way to keep everyone (other than Scalia) happy.

If he had nominated Scalia, the firestorm would have been tremendous.

Too bad the firestorm would have erupted had Bush suggested Scalia for the Chief's job. I know I'm going to catch hell for this, but Scalia is the most brilliant Justice on the Court right now, and I believe he would have made an excellent C.J.

Has anyone actually read his decisions, and I mean not just one or two dissents? (See TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Interesting that in that case, Justice Stevens, clearly SCOTUS's most liberal member, dissented, saying that flag burning could be banned.) Like every other Justice who has ever served, I am sure I don't agree with 100% of his opinions, but I admire and respect his judicial philosophy.

I'm sure I'll be consequently branded as a right-winger for holding this belief, so be it. As someone who has voted for plenty of Democrats in his life, I nevertheless still like Scalia's line of thinking (usually). It's sad that he's been unfairly branded as some kind of right-wing extremist, which his opinions clearly indicate is not the case.

You make two claims here that have nothing to do with politics. I have not argument against Scalia being the most brilliant of the Justices. I can't say that I agree with that either, but he is quite intelligient. I just haven't had the opportunity to test his IQ in comparrison with the others.

As for making an excellent Chief, I think the other Justices would disagree. He was, evidently, the problem child of the Court from an organizational standpoint, putting him in charge doesn't seem like the best idea.

While I disagree vehemently with most of Scalia's opinions (both written and held), you're absolutely correct that he is a very accomplished legal author. I have to say I prefer Souter's dry wit.

I'm with jqueer on this one. Scalia is a great, fiery writer, (particularly in his dissents), but I'm not sure I'd characterize him as brilliant. Just really good with his use of hyperbole. Conversely, I don't think Justice Kennedy is an idiot, even though I find that his opinions are usually the most poorly written of the Court. It's all in the style--I don't think their respective eloquence reflects each's individual brilliance or non-brilliance.

Souter is also my personal favorite (perhaps due in large part to my suspicion that he's a 'mo--single, runs alone in the park at night, hmmm...).

With Scalia, I just worry that he is way too devoted to his political and jurisprudential ideology to even consider the possible deleterious outcomes of some of his stances (e.g. his Morrison v. Olson dissent would have gutted the Office of Independent Counsel). Even Rehnquist tempered his stances with a healthy dose of pragmatism. And I just can't respect Scalia's awful dissents in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

Edited to add: I read Texas v. Johnson a couple of years ago, and I remember thinking that the result was a no-brainer--I was suprised that it was even a 5-4 decision. It's a well written opinion, but I still don't think that it is evidence of Scalia's brilliance, or of his having the organization/managerial skills necessary to be a Chief Justice.

[ September 05, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Neptune, I had mentioned that flag burning case not as an example of Scalia's brilliance; rather, it was an example of him not being some right-wing robot. He's a big defender of free speech, illustrated in that one case. I found it more surprising that Justice Stevens dissented in that case.

Phelps Clan to Picket Funeral of Sodomite Enabler

[snip the blah, blah, blah.]

OK, I'm baffled too, though I recall a small article in the Washington Post a few years back pointing out that living next door to Rehnquist's home in Arlington was a gay couple. The article said that Rehnquist and his neighbors got along just fine. In the accustomed manner of most neighbors, they would do favors for each other. It will take a while to dig that up.

Edited to add: no, it won't.

Google for \"rehnquist gay neighbors\"

and go to the second hit:

Rehnquist’s Unlikely Pals

I can get that directly from the Post, if you insist.

[ September 06, 2005, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Will you be going to the funeral judge?

I'm guessing Honorary Pall Bearer.