John Roberts nominated to be New Chief Justice

[AlbqOwl]

I just read the President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I am personally disappointed as I thought Thomas or Scalia would be the heir apparent, but this was a good and shrewd move on the part of the President. It keeps the very liberal Justice Stevens, ranking member on the Court, from being interim Justice--the Chief Justice assigns the order that cases will be considered by the Court and Stevens would not be a good choice for that.

It also keeps Sandra Day O'connor's seat vacant and she has agreed to stay on until her replacement is confirmed.

The President has asked Congress to confirm Judge Roberts so that he can be on the job on opening day in four weeks.

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Roberts To Be New Chief Justice

I just read the President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I am personally disappointed as I thought Thomas or Scalia would be the heir apparent, but this was a good and shrewd move on the part of the President. It keeps the very liberal Justice Stevens, ranking member on the Court, from being interim Justice--the Chief Justice assigns the order that cases will be considered by the Court and Stevens would not be a good choice for that.

It also keeps Sandra Day O'connor's seat vacant and she has agreed to stay on until her replacement is confirmed.

The President has asked Congress to confirm Judge Roberts so that he can be on the job on opening day in four weeks.

The title of this thread is misleading....

I think it should be "John Roberts Nominated for New Chief Justice"..

The way it is written now, it sounds like its a done-deal and he has already been confirmed...

I could change it...or I could leave it alone...I'll leave it up to you...

 

[Schweddy]

Re: John Roberts To Be New Chief Justice

Well, Roberts did indeed work under him years ago.

There have been no real dissonance in congress about him - it's almost a done deal.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: John Roberts To Be New Chief Justice

Well, Roberts did indeed work under him years ago.

There have been no real dissonance in congress about him - it's almost a done deal.

That's what I thought and that's why I phrased it the way I did. But I'll leave it to you Mods if you think the title should be changed.

By the way, how do you bold face a thread title? The same way you bold face all or part of a post?

 

[Schweddy]

Re: John Roberts To Be New Chief Justice

That's what I thought and that's why I phrased it the way I did. But I'll leave it to you Mods if you think the title should be changed.

By the way, how do you bold face a thread title? The same way you bold face all or part of a post?

Titles are bolded by default. I agree with cnredd, will change the title.

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Roberts To Be New Chief Justice

Titles are bolded by default. I agree with cnredd, will change the title.

There it is!!!!!! I want this logged!!!!!!!!!:rofl

 

[taxpayer]

I just read the President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nice choice if you want to send our country back to the old days and ways.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The President has asked Congress to confirm Judge Roberts so that he can be on the job on opening day in four weeks.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bush is in a RUSH to get Roberts in but DRAGS his FEET sending help to AMERICAN CITIZENS hit by the BIGGEST NATIONAL DISASTER in our history!:roll: :roll: :roll:
Like all the rest of Bushs screw ups, Bushs priorities seem to be SCREWED UP too!!!:doh

 

[AlbqOwl]

Would it be possible to keep this thread on topic? There are other threads re relief efforts where you can go to bash the president on that score.

 

[taxpayer]

Would it be possible to keep this thread on topic? There are other threads re relief efforts where you can go to bash the president on that score.

I kept it on topic! I posted about Roberts.:doh

So you want to send people to SOMEONE elses thread to bash bush?:roll:

 

[MasterDebater06]

I think Roberts is more moderate than people think.

 

[Navy Pride]

Would it be possible to keep this thread on topic? There are other threads re relief efforts where you can go to bash the president on that score.

You are expecting miracles my friend.............


I think it is a great move by the President to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice.He is young, very conservative and will hold the postion for 25 or 30 years......His confirmation should be a shoo in.......

Now if we can get a Conservative who is pro life like Janis Rogers Brown for the vacant seat that would be the icing on the cake............

I am still hopeful that Roe V Wade will be overturned before I kick the bucket and the decision on abortions left with the states where it belongs......

 

[Navy Pride]

[I think Roberts is more moderate than people think./QUOTE]

In your dreams my friend....I think that President Bush knows exactly how conservative Roberts is...That is why he nominated him for Chief Justice instead of His favorite Justice Scalia or Thomas........

 

[AlbqOwl]

You are expecting miracles my friend.............


I think it is a great move by the President to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice.He is young, very conservative and will hold the postion for 25 or 30 years......His confirmation should be a shoo in.......

Now if we can get a Conservative who is pro life like Janis Rogers Brown for the vacant seat that would be the icing on the cake............

I am still hopeful that Roe V Wade will be overturned before I kick the bucket and the decision on abortions left with the states where it belongs......

Well we've had discussions on that and, while we share the same opinion of abortion, there is room for differences of opinion on how the government should handle it. I wouldn't mind if Roe v Wade was amended to allow the possibility of abortion within the Roe v Wade opinion itself, but leave the decision re abortion to the states or, better yet, individual communities. I think that alone would go a long way toward stopping the slaughter.

I think Roberts is anti-abortion but not anti-Roe v Wade. I don't have a clue how Thomas or Scalia would vote on that. As the President applies no litmus test to his appointments other than that they be qualified and constructionists, the chances that Roe v Wade be overturned seem pretty slim to me. But I've been surprised before.

 

[danarhea]

I think Roberts is more moderate than people think.

I think you are right on that. My only problem with Roberts is that we would have to recuse himself at various times due to a couple of conflicts of interest, but if he does that, I am open to his nomination. However, I believe Scalia would have been a more appropriate choice.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think you are right on that. My only problem with Roberts is that we would have to recuse himself at various times due to a couple of conflicts of interest, but if he does that, I am open to his nomination. However, I believe Scalia would have been a more appropriate choice.

I think it begs for the question.......Why didn't the President nominate Scalia....Could it be that he knows that Roberts might even be more conservative then he is...........Lets hope so...........

One thing for certain..Its a great time in this country to be a Conservative........

 

[Navy Pride]

Well we've had discussions on that and, while we share the same opinion of abortion, there is room for differences of opinion on how the government should handle it. I wouldn't mind if Roe v Wade was amended to allow the possibility of abortion within the Roe v Wade opinion itself, but leave the decision re abortion to the states or, better yet, individual communities. I think that alone would go a long way toward stopping the slaughter.

I think Roberts is anti-abortion but not anti-Roe v Wade. I don't have a clue how Thomas or Scalia would vote on that. As the President applies no litmus test to his appointments other than that they be qualified and constructionists, the chances that Roe v Wade be overturned seem pretty slim to me. But I've been surprised before.

I am not for the complete elimination of all abortions but I think they should only be performed where the life of the mother is endangered or possibly in the case of rape and incest........No one knows for sure how many lives that would save if it had been the law in 1972 but I would say that of the 40,000,000 abortions performed that about 35,000,000 could have been avoided

 

[brassmonkey621]

Most Cheif Justices are appointed to the Court to be Cheif Justices, Rehnquist was an exception, as he was appointed up to Cheif Justice. Bush's move only seems to make Roberts the Cheif Justice only makes sence. Roberts has already undergone much critiquing, and most liberals have not raised to much cane about him. Now that he is appointed to be Cheif Justice, I can understand that democrats will be much more critical of Roberts, but you cant change the past. I realized its a different situation with Roberts now, but their case would have been much more powerful if they had been critical of him from the start. Bush isnt rushing anything either, this move is simply the best option Bush had.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Hurricane Katrina has certainly bumped the Supreme Court controversy off the radar screen for the moment. What do you want to bet the opposition is using the lull to regroup their forces for a fresh attack once this issue is put back on the table? (They'll surely wait until whatever political advantage they think they're getting from the disaster slows down though.)

 

[Navy Pride]

Hurricane Katrina has certainly bumped the Supreme Court controversy off the radar screen for the moment. What do you want to bet the opposition is using the lull to regroup their forces for a fresh attack once this issue is put back on the table? (They'll surely wait until whatever political advantage they think they're getting from the disaster slows down though.)

That is very true.......I personally think the dems in the senate are between a rock and and a hard place in that nothing of the crap thy have thrown up against the wall against Roberts has stuck....He should be confirmed easily..I would say with about 75 votes......Replacing Rehnquist does not really change the court..........Now Oconnor's replacement is another matter, it could be WW3 when it comes to her replacement..............

Not only has Katrina put the news about the justice appointment on the back burner is has also shut up Cindy Sheehan which is a good thing.........

 

[ShamMol]

I think it begs for the question.......Why didn't the President nominate Scalia....Could it be that he knows that Roberts might even be more conservative then he is...........Lets hope so...........

One thing for certain..Its a great time in this country to be a Conservative........

Honestly, it's not, but that is not the point and it really had no point in your post other than to make you feel great about yourself and your supposed great posistion.

The problem is that now Roberts is now nominated to fill the spot of another conservative justice thus cancelling out any chance that he would change the dynamic of the court. Now, with the next apppointment Bush could pull a complete nobody out of his hat that is very conservative and thus truely tip the balance, or pick a moderate who is a friend or who has served with his administration (which he has tended to do before).

Gonzales is what is known as both porven and unproven commodity because he has definite stances on very conservative issues, but still is known to be wavering on many of them. Basically, he could become moderate if he was appointed to the court as so many conservatives before him (Which for you navy would mean that it is not a good time to be a conservative).

 

[ShamMol]

That is very true.......I personally think the dems in the senate are between a rock and and a hard place in that nothing of the crap thy have thrown up against the wall against Roberts has stuck....He should be confirmed easily..I would say with about 75 votes......Replacing Rehnquist does not really change the court..........Now Oconnor's replacement is another matter, it could be WW3 when it comes to her replacement..............

Not only has Katrina put the news about the justice appointment on the back burner is has also shut up Cindy Sheehan which is a good thing.........

No? She hasn't been shut up, and I will gladly give info on planning session, info sessions, tour stops and the like if they would like it from me about what Cindy is doing right now, so...If you want it, Pm me.

O'Connor's replacement is going to allow for what those "extreme circumstances" were called in the moderate's agreement that was written when they were arguing over 7 judges (When may I remind you that they held up close to 50 of Clinton's with no votes for years with no threat like that).

 

[cnredd]

The problem is that now Roberts is now nominated to fill the spot of another conservative justice thus cancelling out any chance that he would change the dynamic of the court. Now, with the next apppointment Bush could pull a complete nobody out of his hat that is very conservative and thus truely tip the balance, or pick a moderate who is a friend or who has served with his administration (which he has tended to do before).

Since when did "balance" become an issue?

Tell me "where" in the Constitution it mentions how the Supreme Court should be "balanced"...That is nothing more than public perception...

Currently, many people believe the "Field of 9" is Liberal...Others believe it is Conservative...It can only be referenced by their own opinions.

Just as you say that a "very Conservative" nominee could "tip the balance", there is someone out there that says a "very Conservative" nominee could "make it more balanced because it was already tipping"...

 

[ShamMol]

Since when did "balance" become an issue?

Tell me "where" in the Constitution it mentions how the Supreme Court should be "balanced"...That is nothing more than public perception...

Currently, many people believe the "Field of 9" is Liberal...Others believe it is Conservative...It can only be referenced by their own opinions.

Just as you say that a "very Conservative" nominee could "tip the balance", there is someone out there that says a "very Conservative" nominee could "make it more balanced because it was already tipping"...

I think it is quite split evenly at the current moment and I am a moderate liberal...so.

Basically, I am of the opinion that with Roberts replacing him as the Chief, it doesn't change anything because it is one conservative replacing another. But then we would have a split court with the balance being tipped, in my opinion (now that I have to preface this stuff), with the other appointment considering O'Connor did swing to the left 14% of the time in her final year.

 

[Navy Pride]

Honestly, it's not, but that is not the point and it really had no point in your post other than to make you feel great about yourself and your supposed great posistion.

The problem is that now Roberts is now nominated to fill the spot of another conservative justice thus cancelling out any chance that he would change the dynamic of the court. Now, with the next apppointment Bush could pull a complete nobody out of his hat that is very conservative and thus truely tip the balance, or pick a moderate who is a friend or who has served with his administration (which he has tended to do before).

Gonzales is what is known as both porven and unproven commodity because he has definite stances on very conservative issues, but still is known to be wavering on many of them. Basically, he could become moderate if he was appointed to the court as so many conservatives before him (Which for you navy would mean that it is not a good time to be a conservative).

To bad there is no way we can bet on this because I can tell you that Gonzales will not be nominated....It will be a woman with the same politcal beliefs as Roberts...That is a promise he made when running for re election and one he will keep.........

Like I said its a great time to be a Conservative and I stand by that statement......

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree 100% with CNRedd re the balance thing. To say you want a 'balanced court' is to say you want a good shot at having your own ideology supported. The Supreme Court should be above petty bickering between Left and Right. There are only two considerations:

1) Do you want a court in which the Supreme Court interprets law in light of the current culture as they want it to be rather than based on original intent? If so why do we need a President and a Congress? Let's just turn everything over to the High Court and let them decide everything in the first place and cut out all the middlemen.

2) Do you want a court in which the Supreme Court makes a judgment on the intent of a law as passed by Congress or other legislative body and determins its constitutionality based on what the Constitution says? If so, why not look for competent, qualified Justices who adhere to that concept so that it won't make any difference what political party they belong to or what their personal ideology is.

I hope to live long enough to see us all grow up enough that the conversation won't be based on whether a Judge is conservative or liberal, but whether s/he is really good at his/her job or isn't.