It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
A conservative to replace Rehnquist would be a 'one for one' proposition. It would be like replacing a conservative with a conservative.

It would not change the balance of the court (Roberts included).

A change would only occur if a 'liberal' justice passed away or retired.

For now, though, I think most sensible people can say that Rehnquist did an honorable job as chief justice. He did not 'throw' the 2000 election to Bush... what he (ad others) said was that a recount could not be SELECTIVELY counted in a Democratic county for the sake of obtaining a Democratic victory. I wish that more people realized that he ruled against a selective and biased recount.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by onlyinmydreams]




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Bush has zero political capital. Especially since Katrina and the handling of it all, I dont think he'll be able to buy any favours.

*watches as everyone runs to the centre*



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

A conservative to replace Rehnquist would be a 'one for one' proposition. It would be like replacing a conservative with a conservative.


I have to agree with you there. The O'Connor replacement is a much more or a tipping the balance than the CJ is at this point. however, should a third go then it get really interesting. That being said, given Bush's fist choice, I expect to see the same in a replacement. Conservative, but not a Bork clone that the Dems can mount a sucsessfull campaign against. Expect it to be a conservative circuit / appeals Judge and NOT from the 9th court.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

...He did not 'throw' the 2000 election to Bush... what he (ad others) said was that a recount could not be SELECTIVELY counted in a Democratic county for the sake of obtaining a Democratic victory. I wish that more people realized that he ruled against a selective and biased recount.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by onlyinmydreams]


I wish more people would bother to look up the facts, like you did. It was the Florida state court that tried to cheat and change the recount rules in mid-election (actually mid-count). The U.S. Supreme Court said to follow the state election law as written.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
now that he died i wonder who will take his place and do a worse job



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadowstriker
now that he died i wonder who will take his place and do a worse job


It will be either Scallila or Thomas. My money is on Thomas. Antonin is simply to abrasive for the CJ post IMHO.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think Scalia should be elevated...I think he deserves it. Plus I don't want to see Anita Hill being dragged out again.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Perhaps they'll move Roberts up.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
This story really isn't breaking through the Katrina coverage in the media. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I lean towards the former.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Perhaps they'll move Roberts up.


Its not unheard of, but I think it would perhaps raise some hackles. While he is pro life, according to some people I know that are part of the "Culture of Life" they object cause he is not "pro life enuf" so thats why my money is on the two ultra conservatives already there. Besides formality the CJ slot is more ceramonial / procedural than anything else.

No doubt when the O'Connor short list was made, there was a backup to Roberts so no doubt the selection has been made and we may see a nominee as soon as the Roberts vote goes through



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I don't think Bush can afford the battle on a Neo-Con Chief Justice. I predict everyone will take a running leap towards the centre and Roberts will be moved up.

He already has the votes as a Justice and the Dems will choose him over anyone on the right.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
We might be overestimating Bush's political capital right now. I think at this point Bush has about spit to do with who goes up. It would only take a handful of rebel republicans to force his hand any way they like. McCain and company have the defacto ability to hand Bush his nominee and make sure he gets voted up.
There are a number of roads this could take. They could force Bush to trade his pick of nominee for his choice of chief justice, ie: they approve Scalia or Thomas for chief justice on the condition that he nominate a liberal justice to fill the new vacancy.
They could go the opposite route- approve a semi-conservative justice in exchange for a liberal chief.

The closest thing Bush has to an ace in the hole is a Queen or a Jack at best- he could play the minority card by putting up J. Rogers Brown or Alberto Gonzalez and putting Thomas up for the top spot. The problem is that skin color alone doesn't necessarily win over minorities, especially when it comes from someone who they don't feel has done them any favors.

If I had to pick I think I'd say that Bush does just that, especially with Thomas. I think he'll try to make the Democrats start an ugly race-baiting fight over Thomas. I sort of suspect that was exactly the sort of tactic the Republicans were running during the Clinton years- when you overwhelm the public with controversial news relating to somebody the public gets tired of it. Even if it's not of that persons making- they just get sick of it and they'll want it over with. I don't think it will work for Bush because he's the one in power and that is by definition an opposition party tactic (and by the by the underlying principles will apply to the 2006 and 2008 elections, meaning that there is no waiting for Bush- he has to get things done right now or his party may not be in power to do anything at all, making compromise necessary at some level if he can't force his way quickly).

So the compromise comes in when Bush does not nominate J. Rogers Brown- I'm sure we'll hear her name from the right, but Bush will stay away from it and compromise- quite possibly with a liberal nominee who shares his views on some smaller issues if possible. I'd have to do a little more reading to have any idea who it would be, but I wouldn't expect one of the usual suspects from the DC Circuit this time necessarily. I'll be looking into the 9th circuit to see if there are any conservatives there who haven't put up much of a fight on issues like abortion- that's the sort of compromise nominee I would expect.

Don't be shocked if my opinion shifts as I read more though. This is my kneejerk reaction.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
This isn't the 1800's bush won't appoint a chief justice from outside the court.

It will be someone already on the supreme court who will be the next Chief Justice.








[edit on 9/4/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I didn't suggest that he would go outside of the court. I suggested that he might go outside of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is commonly seen as the proving ground for future justices.

If Bush has to look elsewhere to find a "darkhorse nominee" who makes a good compromise without being too liberal, I think he will.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Pat Robertson recently prayed for a death in the Supreme Court, so a conservative judge could be appointed. Did his God miss? Or was his God just clearing away old brush? Sould Chavez be worried that Robertson's God is actually listening to him now?

I mean, if you believe in that 'power of prayer' stuff.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Vagabond,

As far as future justices are concerned Bush has always favored "Big Business" in judicial appointments. That was his criteria for appointments during his stint as Texas Governor.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
ROFL Curme, I can't believe I didn't think of that!

As for Bush picking his people based on business interests, I'd say from reading John G Roberts article on Wikipedia that he doesn't seem to fit the bill. This indicates to me that Bush has a lot less wiggle room right now and has to play a tougher game.

You've also got to consider that Bush's pick of cabinet officers (as well as his selection of Roberts) indicates a strong loyalty to the old guard of the Republican elite who have been seen virtually every Republican administration since Nixon and Ford, possibly because of his father's input.

There are a few people on the DC Circuit who might fit this criteria, but their ability to actually be approved is questionable.

There is Karen Lecraft Henderson, nominated by Bush 41. She served as Deputy Attorney General of South Carolina under the administration of James B. Edwards, who later became Secretary of Energy for Reagan.
She's a woman, and she does have that going for her at least. I can't find much more.

Then there is Douglas Howard Ginsberg, current Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. Coiner of the phrase "constitution in exile" and Reagan's nominee after Bork. The main reason he isn't already on the Supreme Court is because the war on drugs was a big deal at the time and it was revealed that he had smoked pot while he was a professor at Harvard Law School. Anthony Kennedy currently sits in the seat that otherwise would have been Ginsberg's and I'm sure that's not something that sits well with Bush and the old guard Republican executives who fill his cabinet.
I think his chances of being approved are slim to none- he's already been rejected once. That's a bit of a stigma.

I think Sentelle is out because of his connections to the Ken Starr investigation.

Arthur Randolph is a Bush 41 appointee and former deputy solicitor general who may have the stuff, but I don't see anything special that he has going for him.

Thomas Griffith didn't take nearly as much heat in the battle over his nomination to the DC Circuit and that in and of itself might be enough to have Bush put him up.

Laurence Silberman was a part of the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, including the Reagan DoD as part of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament and the Department of Defense Policy Board. I think that makes him fit the pattern of what I'd expect Bush to nominate almost perfectly, assuming that he has what it takes to be confirmed.


If Bush draws from the DC Circuit I'm expecting Silberman or Henderson. I think J. Rogers Brown would be an incredible longshot. Being forced into the nuclear option would be seriously bad mojo for the Republicans going into a midterm election.

I'll have to look around at other courts later. If Bush could just have the perfect nominee genetically engineered, I think he'd be looking for a black woman from California who was a strict constructionist and by that philosophy was soft on federal regulation of abortion. If it weren't for that last part, and of course those pesky (and at least fairly accurate) writings on how excessive social programs are inconsistent with democracy, Janice Rogers Brown would be perfect, but I just don't think she'll fly. She's still 10 years younger than many on the DC Circuit, and she's new. I think the Republicans would be wise to store her in a cool dry place so she doesn't decay and bring her back up in 4 or 8 years (assuming they lose in 2008, which I think they very well might).



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Then again he might throw the world a curve and nominate Dick Cheney.

He's kinda scary in his thunking.











[edit on 9/4/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Perhaps it isn't too late to bring back "BORK"..............

Scalia should be Chief now. Ginsberg should be impeached along with those whom follow her insanity..........



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
The scary part is now, in order to have a replacement for the next session Bush has to nominated the replacment for rehnquist soon. That mean Roberts might be ingnored to battle the next replacment, then a compromise could be madeto allow an unltra conservative in, if a more liberal justice gets apponted as chief justice.

Roberts is nothing more then a Bush cronie, and was a distracting black hole for the Plame case.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join