Article

2005-09-05 Home Front: Politix

Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-09-05 11:24|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 And the Moonbats at DU respond as expected:

"The guy is TOO damned young, doesn't have enough judge type experience and is too god-damned partisan. He is also racist and sexist and a corporatist. If the dems (lead by the bushie butt kisser Reid) roll over . . . then the democratic party is deader than it already is. "

"More like a distraction. He's gonna try to sneak Roberts in while the attention is all focused on the aftermath of Katrina."

"The arrogance of this move is astounding, even for Bush. I thought for sure that Scalia would have gotten the nod. It's almost like they are daring the Democrats to filibuster the Roberts nominations, which I think they should. This guy is a partisan hack, who doesn't have enough judicial experience to even be a member of the Supreme Court, let alone Chief Justice."

"GW shoving it in everyone's faces for saying he was "on vacation for too, long; screwed up on Katrina; has a goofy wife; has the goofy twits; for doubting that he is "touched" and belongs in the white house at this point of the rapturxxxxx... oops, history."

"I think that he's timing this to cover for military maneuvers in NO. About 20 minutes ago on the scanner thread in GD, autocrat reported that everything suddenly was jammed. There had been sporadic jamming all night, but now the scanner feeds are totally gone. The MSM will be all over this like they are whenever a pretty white girl goes missing. New Orleans? Katrina? That will be old news."

Damm, Karl Rove is good.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2005-09-05 11:49|| 2005-09-05 11:49|| Front Page Top

#2 Bush actually does something ballsy for once. It's been a long time, W.

Posted by Chris W.">Chris W. 2005-09-05 12:17|| 2005-09-05 12:17|| Front Page Top

#3 What's going to be ballsy is the nomination to replace the woman Sandra Day O'Connor.Guaranteed to sent the DU's into orbit.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-09-05 12:28|| 2005-09-05 12:28|| Front Page Top

#4 I think it's a mistake. Better to have Roberts replace O'Connor and then have another conservative replace Rehnquist. Once Roberts is confirmed, getting another conservative to fill in for Rehnquist is a no-brainer. Having Roberts replace Rehnquist, and then fighting the O'Connor battle all over again is going to be tough.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 12:36|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 12:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Rehnquist served as a Judge, either. This is really sending the Dems into a mouth-frothing frenzy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-09-05 12:49|| 2005-09-05 12:49|| Front Page Top

#6 Good luck selling Roberts as "too extreme" compared to Renquist. Roberts used to clerk for him, which means he did his job at least part of the time.

I notice he's now "too young and inexperienced"...

Assholes.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-09-05 13:13|| 2005-09-05 13:13|| Front Page Top

#7 You're right DB. From Rehnquist'a bio:
EDUCATION: Bachelor's and master's degree, Stanford University, 1948; master's degree, Harvard University, 1949; law degree, Stanford University, 1952.
CAREER: U.S. Army Air Corps soldier, 1943-46; law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1951-53; private practice in Phoenix, Ariz., 1953-69; assistant U.S. attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, 1969-71; named to Supreme Court by President Nixon, 1972; elevated to chief justice by President Reagan, 1986.
No judge title 'til Nixon brought him the Supreme Court.

Posted by GK 2005-09-05 13:28|| 2005-09-05 13:28|| Front Page Top

#8 Well mojo, if the Dems insisted that a Sandra O'Conner type replace Sandra they then set the standard for the Chief Justice. Sounds like one of his former clerk certainly meets that standard. Not that it will mean they'll STFU with new and even more demands. However, it is a nice turn on be careful of what you wish for.

Posted by Omitle Sluse2961 2005-09-05 13:32|| 2005-09-05 13:32|| Front Page Top

#9 they've been reduced to criticizing Roberts for things he wrote in high school...pathetic losers

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-09-05 13:52|| 2005-09-05 13:52|| Front Page Top

#10 I think this is an excellent move, for the court as well as politically.

Roberts strikes me as the kind of temperament (personal and legal) who can pull together a majority opinion on important issues. That first and foremost is the Chief Justice's job.

His relative youth also means some stability over time. God knows we need some in this country and will need it more in the near future.

Posted by Omerens Omaigum2983 2005-09-05 14:03|| 2005-09-05 14:03|| Front Page Top

#11 OO: Roberts strikes me as the kind of temperament (personal and legal) who can pull together a majority opinion on important issues. That first and foremost is the Chief Justice's job.

I doubt anyone can "pull" anything together in the SC. Rehnquist has certainly been in the minority for a heck of a lot of Supreme Court cases. The Chief Justice designation is purely ceremonial. CJ's don't have any more authority than any other SC justice. Roberts' appointment certainly won't make the liberals on the court less liberal.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 14:21|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 14:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Bush had to do this. When the Chief Justice dies the oldest member takes over -- in this case Stevens. That would put the court into liberal hands for the new term starting Oct 2, and less one conservative vote.

O'Connor's resignation only takes effect when her replacement is confirmed. With Roberts in as Chief Justice and O'Connor still on board until a replacement is confirmed we at least maintain the status quo.

Look for the left to demand more time (i.e. delays).

Here's hoping Roberts is as good as he'd better be.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2005-09-05 14:54|| 2005-09-05 14:54|| Front Page Top

#13 CJ's don't have any more authority than any other SC justice

On the contrary. Chief Justices assign the writing of opinions, usually after feeling out the justices on their positions. There is in fact a good deal of negotiation that happens on the court and the CJ either facilitates that or is swept away by it or makes it impossible to achieve well.

Of COURSE he won't change the philosophy of the liberals. But a lot of the vote casting on the court comes after camps emerge - and THAT happens when the issues get framed.

A lot can be done by framing those issues from the start in ways that can produce interesting alliances.

I'm not saying there's a magic wand, but there certainly is a reason this appointment is a bigger one than for an associate.

Posted by lotp 2005-09-05 15:02|| 2005-09-05 15:02|| Front Page Top

00:09 C-Low
00:00 Redneck Jim
23:55 Redneck Jim
23:48 C-Low
23:43 .com
23:40 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 Ulaick Wholuck8171
23:31 Rafael
23:24 Rafael
23:19 asedwich
23:15 Anonymoose
23:08 asedwich
23:01 Anonymoose
22:56 Paul Moloney
22:53 smn
22:51 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:47 mom
22:46 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:41 Rafael
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:17 xbalanke
22:16 11A5S
22:16 Anonymoose
22:16 mom