Rehnquist dead

[RGBVideo]

People trying search serious discussions from Playboy magazine instead of newspapers

Ever since the Schiavo thread where he posted blatant lies after blatant lies without any shame, I've always considered Drake Tungsten as a Bushbot. I'm surprised that someone still finds time to argue or flame him, considering the chances of him changing his mind about Bush.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Actually the majority of chief justices were never regular supreme court justices first. I think I heard 10 out of 16 were first appointed to be CJ. Or somehting like that. Its the clear majority of cases. Rehnquist, being elevated from regular justice to CJ was in the minority.

Yeah, elevation is the exception, not the rule, and the Chief Justice position is regularly extended to a prominent politician. Earl Warren is the most recent example in that vein; the most famous example is Taft (Charles Evans Hughes, GOP presidential candidate in 1916 and SecState under Harding and Coolige, is another). If Renquist had died on Clinton's watch, there was a decent possibility that Clinton would have appoint Mario Cuomo as CJ.

The man I pity here is Roberts. Can you imagine having to be Scalia's nominal boss in these circumstances?

[Joseph]

It doen't matter who gets appointed.

Earl Warren. A very Conservative Rep. Gov of Calif.

Appointed to SC. Make CJ of SC and becomes the biggest liberal of the last century on the SC.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Joseph
It doen't matter who gets appointed.

Earl Warren. A very Conservative Rep. Gov of Calif.

Appointed to SC. Make CJ of SC and becomes the biggest liberal of the last century on the SC.

The example of Warren's ideological 180 is famous, but it's hard to think of another CJ who fits that pattern. The one example hardly proves that it doesn't matter who gets appointed.

[DinoDoc]

Souter.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Souter.

And Souter is Chief Justice...where? A Harry Turtledove novel?

In fairness, it is true that the ideological change of heart that Joseph was describing happens nore often to associate justices; Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, Brennan, and Black are all good examples of justices who turned out more liberal that their appointing prez thought they would be; White and maybe Breyer are examples of the opposite. But it rarely happens with a CJ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting turn on things with nominating Roberts as CJ. It seems like with two openings on the bench, Bush is pegging Roberts are Rehnquist's successor, which may leave the door open for Gonzales (ie, the moderate to replace O'Conner).

Possible, but perhaps unlikely.

Anyway, the CJ really isn't that important of a position compared to the rest. Really, all the justices have basically the same power, the CJ just has a tiny bit more, but not so much to make much of a difference.

[Winston]

He leads the conferences, can alter the way in which judges' opinions are heard during conferences, decides who writes majority rulings and can heavily influence the criteria for which cases the court should hear. I'd say that alone is a fair amount of additional power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it really isn't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Anyway, the CJ really isn't that important of a position compared to the rest. Really, all the justices have basically the same power, the CJ just has a tiny bit more, but not so much to make much of a difference.

He has the cooler title.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, and Rehnny had those stripes . And the court gets to be known as the CJ's court, even if his views aren't in the majority (like CJ Burger).

Really all he gets to do is some organizational stuff. He picks who speaks next in the conferences and gets to decide who writes the majority opinion, if he's in that majority (who amazingly enough is usually the guy who has the most justices in the majority supporting his theory ).

[DinoDoc]

Well the Chief Justice does choose the composition of the Intelligence courts, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just had to look it up (I've never heard of such a thing before), and apparently so.

Though you'd think the CJ would have to do it with the DoJ or some other federal agency. The CJ probably wouldn't know who the district judges were (especially if he'd never been a district judge before)!

Hmm.. perhaps that specific reason is why Bush tagged Roberts for the job. Roberts, in at least one opinion, has been very pro-President in the WoT. Scalia, on the other hand, hasn't (see Hamdi)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I just had to look it up (I've never heard of such a thing before), and apparently so.

I'd heard it over the radio today myself. Don't feel bad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VJ
People trying search serious discussions from Playboy magazine instead of newspapers

NPR confirmed it.