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: Bush Nominates Roberts For Chief Justice

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
President Bush has put forth John Roberts as his nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts, who isnt even on the Supreme Court yet would replace William Rehnquist who died on Saturday. Originally Roberts was nominated to replace Justice O'Connor after she retires but now an additional replacement will have to be sought.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Moving swiftly, President Bush will nominate John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, a senior administration source said Monday.

The move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a man who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices.

Naming Roberts for chief justice was about the only way to ensure all nine seats on the court are filled when it begins its next term Oct. 3. If the court began a new term with only eight justices, it could have resulted in 4-4 ties on controversial cases.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Stand aside ya'll this is how a cowboy operates. Nominating some one to lead the Supreme Court before he is even on it!

This is a slap in the face to the rest of the Supreme Court who have been serving for years. Even Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court as a Justice for 14 years before becoming Chief Justice.

Why is Bush rushing to get his own man as Chief Justice right now? Astounding

[edit on 5/9/05 by subz]




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
When talking about prosecution of goverment and ex-goverment officials, is it the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices who rule on that?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I did not think so in the other thread and had pegged Scalia or Thomas for the post. However, both would face a nasty confirmation battle. Roberts nominate would avoid much of that and it sort of boxes the Dems in a bit. Its the smart move to make.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
There are already people in the Supreme Court, I agree to give the position to one of them. Roberts is not Supreme Court material, nevermind Chief Justice.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
1. I do believe that president Bush appointed Roberts to the supreme court during the recent recess of the House and Senate. So he is technically already on the supreme court all that remains is his confirmation. I believe in the current situation he could sit on the court for up to one year.

2. As for appointing his own man Chief Justice, he is entitled to do whatever he feels is best, albeit his own man or not that is is right as president. I also recall some comments from the news shortly after the Current Chief Justice died that if he did nominate Roberts to be the new Chief Justice it would be nothing new since apparently this had happened in the past. I cannot however remember the name of that justice right now.



[edit on 9/5/2005 by shots]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
In the great scheme of things however, Is the position that influential? Im asking here because SC internal matters is a weak spon im my grasp of history. Is it not more of a cerimonial position? I do not see the CJ being able to bully anybody with a lifetime appointment to vote his way anyhow.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Roberts is not Supreme Court material. I jdont think he has the right attitude. I did not hear any argument from Roberts on why he thinks he is entitled to a Supreme Court position. I heard nothing that said what he thought on important issues such as supporting the 2nd Amendment, his view on the Patriot Act type legislation, and his position on emminent domain.

He is just another someone that is fed into the system because he says what he says to make certain people happy. He doesnt think for himself and is no better then the public defenders you may receive in the court of law working for the prosecution.



Trash

[edit on 5-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

In the great scheme of things however, Is the position that influential? Im asking here because SC internal matters is a weak spon im my grasp of history. Is it not more of a cerimonial position? I do not see the CJ being able to bully anybody with a lifetime appointment to vote his way anyhow.


Too a point yes, I do think it is a very influential position. Not that they bully people around but I am sure each and every decision has a lot of politics going on behind the scenes buying and selling votes etc., (I say that on TV
:lol
Not sure if it really takes place but it does sound possible. it has been said that Rehnquist influenced many of votes as Chief Justice that is why I am saying what I did.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Poor Bush...supposedly he is illuminated and belongs to the powerful elite secret society Skull and Bones, descendant of royalty, yet he is so predictable and dumb.

2004 they had Kerry (Skull and Bones) vs Bush (Skull and Bones). Whomever is the head of the so called Illuminati really isn't as enlightened as they would like to think.

100 bucks says Alberto Gonzales is nominated to take O Connors place.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
subz says:


Stand aside ya'll this is how a cowboy operates. Nominating some one to lead the Supreme Court before he is even on it! This is a slap in the face to the rest of the Supreme Court who have been serving for years. Even Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court as a Justice for 14 years before becoming Chief Justice.


Rubbish!

Here are the Chiefs and how they got there ( www.oyez.org... )

1. John Jay 1789-1795 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
2. John Rutledge 1795 Promoted from Associate Justice
3. Oliver Ellsworth 1796-1800 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
4. John Marshall 1801-1835 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
5. Roger Brooke Taney 1836-1864 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
6. Salmon Portland Chase 1864-1873 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
7. Morrison R. Waite 1874-1888 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
8. Melville Weston Fuller 1888-1910 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
9. Edward Douglas White 1910-1921 Promoted from Associate Justice
10. William Howard Taft 1921-1930 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
11. Charles Evans Hughes 1930-1946 Promoted from Associate Justice
12. Harlan Fiske Stone 1941-1946 Promoted from Associate Justice
13. Fred M. Vinson 1946-1953 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
14. Earl Warren 1953-1969 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
15. Warren E. Burger 1969-1986 Appointed to Court as Chief Justice
16. William H. Rehnquist 1986-2005 Promoted from Associate Justice

Of the sixteen Chiefs of the Supreme Court, 11, or over two-thirds, first came to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice, and only five were promoted from Associate Justice. What Bush is doing is the rule, not the exception.

Subz, I know that you're not an American, and aren't really expected to know all that much about our government. Nonetheless, if you're going to make political comments and opinions about a subject, I expect you to at least understand it.

I suggest that you try not to let your dislike of the present administration get in the way of doing just a couple of minutes of basic research. Remember, here in ATS we're in the business of denying ignorance, not perpetuating it.

...And it's y'all (contraction of "you all"), not ya'll.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
My problem isn't that he is trying to appoint someone to the position. My problem is that he is trying to appoint someone to the position with so little experience. It really defines what is wrong in this country where you have people coming out of college with little or no experience or little or no real life experience only to be pushed immediately in a position of management over people with 20 years of experience.

1. They aren't qualified for the job.
2. There will certainly be resentment in the ranks.

I have no problem with Roberts being on the bench provided that his idea of following the constitution isn't a lie. I think making him #1 man is a big mistake.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Excuse me OTS but when you are finished pontificating can you explain to me how many of those chief justices were appointed without the consent of the legislative branch?

Theres denying ignorance and there is being arrogant.

And if you want to be pedantic Y'ALL, your link is dead


[edit on 5/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
subz says:


... can you explain to me how many of those chief justices were appointed without the consent of the legislative branch?


What makes you think they weren't approved of by the Senate? The Constitution (Article II Section II) says the President shall appoint Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate.


Theres denying ignorance and there is being arrogant.


Quit being a crybaby, subz. If someone starts pontificating with the sole reason of slamming the administration of the United States, he can be expected to be called on it -- especially if he doesn't know what he's talking about.


And if you want to be pedantic Y'ALL, your link is dead


So is Rehnquist, which is why Roberts will be the next Chief Justice.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I would have love to see Thomas in the seat for chief, but as everything in this nation and with the present administration, things tend to be a littler bit on the favoritism side.

And Thomas is not the right color.

Now Mr. Roberts is just the poppet of the religious movement in America and now they are going to get their wish to take over the Supreme court with him as chief.


I agree this man is not Justice material I even prefer Gonzales if he was nominated.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Quit being a crybaby, subz. If someone starts pontificating with the sole reason of slamming the administration of the United States, he can be expected to be called on it -- especially if he doesn't know what he's talking about.


And if you want to be pedantic Y'ALL, your link is dead


So is Rehnquist, which is why Roberts will be the next Chief Justice.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Off_The_Street]


Thanks for the link OTS it was very slow but worked for me just fine


Here subz an alternate link for the computer impaired



www.oyez.org...



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
marg says:


I would have love to see Thomas in the seat for chief, but as everything in this nation and with the present administration, things tend to be a littler bit on the favoritism side.


Do you mean Clarence Thomas? I think Bush would love to have selected him as Chief Justice, but the fight for his confirmation would be very tough. Thomas is the most conservative Justice on the court, even more so that Antonin Scalia.


And Thomas is not the right color.


I disagree. Thomas is exactly the right color. The Republicans have been trying to co-opt blacks for a long time, and have more high-ranking blacks than any other administration. Given the backlash from the Katrina (rather uncalled-for, in my opinion, but that's the subject of a different thread), selecting Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice would fit both politics and Bush's personal preference to a "t". But the Democrats would shoot him down in a heartbeat.


Now Mr. Roberts is just the poppet of the religious movement in America and now they are going to get their wish to take over the Supreme court with him as chief.


The chief justice has no more power than any other justice, except for deciding who will write the majority and minority opinions. He can -- and does -- get outvoted at any time.

Besides, John Roberts is not exactly the darling of the religious right. From what I know about him (and I am by no means an expert) ther're only two religious-related items of interest inhis resume:

He co-authored two briefs arguing for an expanded role for religion in public schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus brief before the Supreme Court in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program. The Supreme Court rejected that view.

In the other, the government argued that barring a religious group from meeting on school grounds violates the Equal Access Act, while granting access does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court agreed.

I hardly think that makes him a "puppet" of the Religious Right!


...I even prefer Gonzales if he was nominated.


Alberto Gonzales is probably Bush's first choice, because he trusts Gonzales explicitly. But Gonzales is, in the eyes of Bush's core groups, a bit too soft on the abortion and church-vs-state issues.

On the other hand, seating Roberts as the Chief (which will undoubtedly happen); and getting Gonzales through the approval process (obviously, the Democrats wouldn't vote against him) are both quite feasible. My bet is that the person nominated to take O'Connor's place will be either a woman or a Hispanic.

On a personal note, I am kind of sad that both of those folks, Arizonans like me, are no longer with the court.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


And Thomas is not the right color.


I agree this man is not Justice material I even prefer Gonzales if he was nominated.


First you say you would love to see him and chief then as usual take a snipe at the current addminitstion followed by he not the right Color (totally uncalled for Marg) followed by you prefer Gonzales. Why because he is the right color. Geezzzzzzzzzzzzz


Lets leave the sniping and race issue out of this ok. I do not want to see that black band come back.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Stand aside ya'll this is how a cowboy operates. Nominating some one to lead the Supreme Court before he is even on it!

This is a slap in the face to the rest of the Supreme Court who have been serving for years. Even Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court as a Justice for 14 years before becoming Chief Justice.

Why is Bush rushing to get his own man as Chief Justice right now? Astounding


What others have said is correct, this is what usually happens. It's actually rare for an Associate Justice to be elevated to Chief Justice....I agree it seems somewhat unfair to those already on the Court, but the President usually wants to put someone as young as possible in there as the Chief so he can leave the longest mark possible on the Court. Plus it would require a new confirmation for the existing justice, so many probably wouldn't want it. Scalia or Thomas would probably have a lot of trouble in the Senate.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Of the sixteen Chiefs of the Supreme Court, 11, or over two-thirds, first came to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice, and only five were promoted from Associate Justice. What Bush is doing is the rule, not the exception.

You can also see that since 1910 half of the Chief Justices have been on the Supreme court beforehand. Kind of a different slant, no? That makes the move a bit equivocal rather than adhering to concrete precedent dont you think?


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What makes you think they weren't approved of by the Senate?

Nothing, thats not what I was asking. I was asking how many appointments to the Supreme Court, that you listed, were done so without the confirmation of the Senate? Roberts hasnt been confirmed by the senate yet and its likely Bush will appoint him in recess, like he did with Bolton.

Bush's yeehaw (do tell, did I spell that colloquialism right?) nomination was quicker than he took to respond to Katrina. Rehnquist has only been dead since Saturday and he nominates Roberts on Sunday. He hog-tied this political issue lickity split


Also he originally nominated Roberts to replace O'Connor but quickly changed his mind when Rehnquist popped his clogs. He did this to avoid the obvious gap between O'Connor's liberalism and Robert's conservatism. Rehnquist's views are closer to Roberts own.


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Quit being a crybaby, subz. If someone starts pontificating with the sole reason of slamming the administration of the United States, he can be expected to be called on it -- especially if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Buddy, you are not impressing any one with your insults. You can make your posts without them and the content remains the same
Remember, you are not George W. Bush, I never insulted you so save your trolling.

[edit on 5/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The so call Mr. Roberts has a very nice trail of negativity when it comes to women issues and civil rights.

Back in the 80’s when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was considered to be Chief Justice he scoffed and said that political gender gap was a “crass political consideration”

He will follow the same views of Reagan that saw women’s in politics as “having women issues” that needed to be deal with first as a joke when referring to women.

During Reagan he was involve on tramping progress on key issues to benefit women, and their equal rights.

All this information along with many issues is in the papers that the white house doesn’t want to release.

I am a woman and I said this man stinks and if you are a man that believe that women rights belong in the kitchen like fundamentalist do then he is a religious poppet.

If nominating an African American as chief is no even considerate them I have an issue with that also.

And for Gonzales I don’t like him but he at least is Hispanic. But we all know how much you dislike illegal immigrants Shots, and Gonzales parents came they to this country the way you dislike the most.

And as for women rights I guess shots you most like to have women under your foot. Right?

So is ok for Mr. Roberts that has hold his present position for only a few years to become the “Chief Justice”

Wonderful.

www.suntimes.com...


[edit on 5-9-2005 by marg6043]




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join