BREAKING: Bush will nominate Roberts for Chief Justice.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

Breaking on CNN.

No link yet.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Whaaaaaa?????

Has this ever happebned before (an SC nominee being elevated directly to CJ)????

[supernova]

2. I'd like to know that too!

This is crazy. He hasn't spent any time on the SC.

JR must be the luckiest candidate. ever.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. Just looked it up, it's precedented...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html

In this century alone, Warren Burger, Earl Warren, Frederick Vinson, William Howard Taft and Melville Fuller all were CJ's from their initial appointment.

[dansolo]

21. What was the judicial background of each of those justices?

Did any of them have only two years of experience on the bench?

[Seeking Serenity]

34. Earl Warren

had been governor of California when he was picked by Eisenhower yo be CJOTUS.

[Why Syzygy]

28. But not standard OP

This is the first time there have been two openings on the Supreme Court in 34 years. And with Senate approval needed to elevate even a sitting justice to the post of chief justice, it sets up the possibility of three Senate confirmation hearings over the coming weeks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/05/MNGIFEIMQ41.DTL

[djg21]

67. Prediction: 3rd Vacancy.

Scalia will step down. He's no doubt pissed that he wasn't nominated to become the CJ, especially after he delivered the 2000 election to Shrub.

He'll move on to do other things.

[countingbluecars]

75. I had the same thought.

This must be a slap in the face to him.

[Jawja]

99. Yes, I was sure that

the appointment to CJ would be Scalia's payoff for helping Nero get whee he is today.

[leesa]

106. And after he already won the job duck hunting for dollars with Cheney

He kept the Energy Papers hidden that Dick desperately needed hidden.

This goes to show that Roberts is a more active and dedicated member of the Bush Crime Family than anyone knows. He will do anything for the organization. He will make their war crimes go away.

[Why Syzygy]

112. I think the article is

saying . two for the vacancies and one for Chief. The Senate has to approve all three.

If there is another resignation that would make four confirmation hearings. Oh Boy.

I think I hope he doesn't resign. Congress has to get some other things done. Like Impeachment proceedings.

[Laelth]

147. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Sadly, it's Justice Stevens who's most likely to go next. In addition, Justice Ginsberg has been in poor health of late. Neither of these two will resign, of course. They'll wait for a Democratic President, if they can.

But Scalia resign? Not a chance.

-Laelth

[FourStarDemocrat]

104. NyTimes link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html

[shanti]

119. lucky, yeah, that's it.

:eyes: this STINKS.

[howmad1]

149. Good grief, you are all missing the point!

This is a brilliant rovian move.
Roberts gets picked for head of SC.
Democrats go nuts.
Rethugs impose nuclear option.
Roberts gets confirmed.
Pres. prick picks whacko conservative to replace O'Connor.
No fillibuster, whacko gets confirmed.
And the SC is in rethuglican hands for the next 40 years, or as long as Roberts lives.
So long, Roe vs Wade.
Buy stock in coat hanger manufacturers.
Absolutely fucking brilliant! ;(

[oneold1-4u]

150. Impeachment

Someone needs to check on what happens to all presidential appointees when imp. occurs and if they really have much of a job on the court other than a fiasco worth TV comedy?

[Ravenseye]

63. actually that's normal

it's rare to elevate someone to the position. There have been only 16 CJ's and only 4 of those have been elevated. It's far more common to have them come in from the outside.

[cornermouse]

3. Intelligent evil?

Loyal repulican party political fixture with long standing wins the nomination.

[shanti]

120. and he's relatively young

:(

[DELUSIONAL]

4. Oh right

one in a long string of inept, political appointments.

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.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. The bad qualities you mentioned are why he was picked in the first place.

[thinkingwoman]

6. "racist and sexist and a corporatist"

wow, sounds like Renquist all over again. :eyes:

[Be Brave]

11. Young equals long tenure. Bush's legacy will last a long time. n/t

[terrya]

7. No, I don't think so.

Oh, come on.

[thinkingwoman]

8. It's bullshit but it's true

Typical for Bush. He'll announce in 11 minutes.

[terrya]

10. Seriously??? Roberts for Chief Justice??

I didn't mean to be snarky, but this is just ridiculous.

[Solly Mack]

12. It's true - sadly. disgustingly.tragically. true

[thinkingwoman]

24. I agree that it's ridiculous

so of course it is true. With Bush, the more outrageous and ridiculous something is, the more likely it is true.

Bizarro World indeed.

[CityDem]

116. This has been in the works

Bush has planned to appoint Roberts as Chief Justice for some time. O'Connor threw a wrench in the plans by retiring before Rehnquist. This is not a big surprise.

[Solly Mack]

9. It's true. Bush to speak at 8 AM EST

[Diddy_Wa_Diddy]

16. cnn is pulling ur leg

bush can't nominate roberts until he has been confirmed

this story is a hoax

[Solly Mack]

18. not so - he can also be nominated as the chief justice at the same time

[DRoseDARs]

29. AP has the story

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus

[DRoseDARs]

32. And now Bush is on live tv right now saying he is. n/t

[hyphenate]

41. No hoax

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

[Up2Late]

100. I think you're right, what better time for this?

But that doesn't mean I like this BS.

[Why Syzygy]

113. Okay. Let's think about this.

Hoax. George FUBAR Bush. Is there any difference. Didn't think so.

[dansolo]

14. Extraordinary circumstances

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.

[terrya]

20. I don't think it changes anything. The Dems should filibuster this.

Even more so now. He clearly isn't qualified for Chief Justice.

Fuck, if I were Harry Reid, I'd be drafting a statement right now basically saying that.

[djg21]

69. I'm curious.

What qualifications do you think a CJ (as opposed to an Associate Justice) have? The additional roles of the CJ are largely administrative. The key power had by the CJ is the authority to determine and assign the Justices that will author various opinions. I don't think that there is any basis to oppose Robert's confirmation based on a lack of experience.

Now that Roberts will replace Rehnquist, I see Roberts as an improvement. At least he is intellectually honest in his decisions, which could not be said for Rehnquist. The real questions is who Shrub will nominate to replace O'Connor, and we should be focusing on that!

[leesa]

107. Intellecuatlly honest....is that why he helped steal the 2000 election?

Is that why he helped cover-up Iran-Contra?? The man's part of their crime family, part of their syndicate.

[djg21]

158. Have you ever read a decision he authored?

Do you practice law? If you had and do, you'd understand my comments. I'm not suggesting that I agree with all his judicial ideologies. Reasonable minds may differ. However, you are going to get a judge that is conservative no matter what. With Roberts, at least you get a smart one who actually bases his decisions on the law and reason.

BTW, the attorney who was one of the lead litigators for Bush-Cheney in 2000 is a registered Democrat. He took the case because it was a good business decision for his firm. Dopes that make him irrational?

[bain_sidhe]

139. CJ has FAR more power than you think!

The Chief Justice wields huge administrative power over not just the Supreme Court, but lower courts as well. Read this article:

One Robe, Two Hats
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/621/yls_article.htm

Some excerpts:

To look only at the chief justice’s role within the Supreme Court, however, is to ignore his authority over the federal judiciary and his influence in Congress. In essence, the chief justice is the chief executive officer of a bureaucracy of some 1,200 life-tenured judges, 850 more magistrate and bankruptcy judges, and a staff of 30,000. He is the chair of the policy-setting body - the Judicial Conference of the United States - that establishes the priorities for the federal judiciary, including overseeing its budget, now about $5.43 billion annually.

<…>

The chief justice also picks the judges who serve on federal tribunals like the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (with the power to permit deportation of legal aliens suspected of aiding terrorism) and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (with authority to consolidate cases pending across the federal system involving topics from toxic torts to antitrust violations). <…> And the chief justice selects the 11 judges who sit for seven-year terms on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which since its creation in 1978 has approved over 10,000 government requests for surveillance warrants.

The chief also picks the 255 people who sit on the 24 committees of the judiciary, including those that make the rules for litigants. Whether a civil litigant, a prosecutor, a criminal defendant or a bankruptcy petitioner, litigants must comply with requirements described in federal rules, all crafted by committees whose members are selected by the chief.

There’s much more at the article, but the main point (IMHO) of nominating Roberts is to insure long-term control over this apparatus. If Bush nominated one of the older conservatives for the spot, there’s a chance a Democratic President might be able to put a more liberal justice (assuming there are any left by the time we actually get a Democratic President) in charge of that power within a couple of decades, rather than the 40 years or more Roberts could have.

[shanti]

123. exactly

roberts wasn't fully supported before, so now * shoves him in our faces as the scj. even more reason to filibuster. if this happens, and 2-3 more are nominated, it will turn this country back YEARS.

[Twist_U_Up]

15. Bush sure is in a hurry

Rehnquists body isnt even cold yet

[thinkingwoman]

27. I wonder what cases

are coming up that Bush doesn't want to end in a tie, because it does seem like he's in a big hurry.

edited to change wander to wonder--low on caffeine this morning.

[jamesinca]

87. What cases

Anything with Roe v. Wade and in '06 his impeachment for Iraq. That is what this is in my opinion. He is busier than a cat in the litter box cover up his crap, and he is putting a CJ in there that he hopes will rule his way in the impeachment. Remember loyalty is everything to him. Who did he give the "Freedom medals" to? Who does he appoint to positions in his administration? Who has he gotten rid of from this administration? He got rid of Paul O'Neil Sect. Treasury, EPA head Christie Whitman, Gen. Eric Shinseki, Gen Wes Clark, Head of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the list goes on.

Somebody in this thread if Scalia will step down because of this slap in the face? He might considering how much loyalty means to Bush and how he has treated it in the past.

[thinkingwoman]

117. Impeachment...yep, I can see that being a concern

But with Roe they're still one vote short (if the previous votes are an indication).

[Bill McBlueState]

118. impeachment

How is the supreme court involved in the impeachment process?

The House votes to impeach, and the Senate tries the case.

[despairing optimist]

138. If Bush is impeached, he won't get Roberts in

The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate trial.

Remember Rehnquist's fancy designer robe for Clinton's impeachment trial? This time the robe should be made of flotsam from New Orleans.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

53. 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."

[napi21]

17. What is the difference between the positions of Chief Justice and

Associate Justice on the SC?

I realize the CJ is the head of the body, and perhaps co-ordinates things, but they only have one vote, the same as each of the other 8 justices, so what's really the diff. other than status?

[Cooley Hurd]

22. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the Judicial Branch of the government of the United States, and presides over the Supreme Court of the United States. The position is currently vacant; the previous Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, died September 3, 2005.

The office is often but incorrectly referred to as "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." The United States Code specifies the title as "Chief Justice of the United States," and thus, not just of the Court itself. The title changed at the suggestion of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who wished to emphasize the Court's role as a coequal branch of government. By contrast, the other eight members of the Court are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, not "Associate Justices of the United States."

The Chief Justice, like the Associate Justices, is nominated by the President and confirmed to sit on the Court by the U.S. Senate. The Constitution of the United States states that all Justices of the Court "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," meaning that appointments are for life: they end only when a Justice chooses to retire, dies, or is impeached and convicted by the Congress. Some Chief Justices, like William H. Rehnquist, were elevated by the President after having served previously on the bench as an Associate Justice. Justices who are elevated to the position of Chief Justice from that of Associate Justice must again be confirmed by the Senate (a rejection by the Senate, however, does not end their tenure as an Associate Justice, it merely prevents them from serving as Chief Justice). Most Chief Justices, like William Howard Taft (a former President himself) and Earl Warren, are nominated to the highest position on the Court, and indeed in the entire United States Judiciary, without any previous experience on the Court.
<snip>

Of course, as we all witnessed in 1998, they also preside over Presidential impeachment hearings...:grr:

[zara]

26. Chief Justice Assigns Opinion Writer when in the majority

and has more prestige to the world.
The Opinion Writer function is important, as the other justices line up for and against. Often a fence sitter justice may be assigned to write the opinion of the apparent majority of five--it is a tool to pull the fence sitter into the majority camp.
Justice Brennan was said to be a master of this--the senior justice in the majority does the assigning if the chief is not in it. This was my understanding a few years ago anyway

[bain_sidhe]

141. CJ has wide ranging power

I've been beating this drum all over the net, including on this thread. Pardon me for the copy and paste, but I think it's important that everybody gets this: The Chief justice wields enormous power over NOT JUST the Supreme Court, but the ENTIRE federal judiciary, as detailed in this article:

One Robe, Two Hats
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/621/yls_article.htm

Some excerpts:

To look only at the chief justice’s role within the Supreme Court, however, is to ignore his authority over the federal judiciary and his influence in Congress. In essence, the chief justice is the chief executive officer of a bureaucracy of some 1,200 life-tenured judges, 850 more magistrate and bankruptcy judges, and a staff of 30,000. He is the chair of the policy-setting body - the Judicial Conference of the United States - that establishes the priorities for the federal judiciary, including overseeing its budget, now about $5.43 billion annually.

<…>

The chief justice also picks the judges who serve on federal tribunals like the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (with the power to permit deportation of legal aliens suspected of aiding terrorism) and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (with authority to consolidate cases pending across the federal system involving topics from toxic torts to antitrust violations). <…> And the chief justice selects the 11 judges who sit for seven-year terms on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which since its creation in 1978 has approved over 10,000 government requests for surveillance warrants.

The chief also picks the 255 people who sit on the 24 committees of the judiciary, including those that make the rules for litigants. Whether a civil litigant, a prosecutor, a criminal defendant or a bankruptcy petitioner, litigants must comply with requirements described in federal rules, all crafted by committees whose members are selected by the chief.

There’s much more at the article, but the main point (IMHO) of nominating Roberts is to insure long-term control over this apparatus. If Bush nominated one of the older conservatives for the spot, there’s a chance a Democratic President might be able to put a more liberal justice (assuming there are any left by the time we actually get a Democratic President) in charge of that power within a couple of decades, rather than the 40 years or more Roberts could have.

**edited for copy/paste error**

[Why Syzygy]

159. Thank you

for bringing that to the table. It does need strong consideration.

[ElectroPrincess]

19. The hubris of these bastards is breathtaking ... we must stop this!?! /n/t

[amandabeech]

23. 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.

[MaineDem]

25. Senators who were on the fence should now jump to the no side

Chief Justice??? No freakin' way!

Now is the time for our Democratic Senators - and locally our two GOP "moderates" - to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

THis has now gone too far.

[rooboy]

30. PURE MEDIA TACTIC.

Bush doesn't care if Roberts gets rejected by the Senate on this. He just needs ANYTHING to get Katrina off the front page - and a big controversy is the only way to do it.

[HuffleClaw]

36. EEEEEEEP

holy creepin' jesus. did you folks SEE bush on tv (@08h00 EST) ? ? ? he managed to put BOTH feet in his mouth. he was in a right mood. holy crap. roberts looked SCARED to death too. wow. i've gotta wonder just what happened behind the scenes on this.

[Why Syzygy]

162. lol

probably stage planning, as usual. If it's that scary in front of the camera, ya really don't want to think about behind the curtain.

[ElectroPrincess]

31. Damn! People are still dying in NO and this bastard only wants to focus

on the Supreme Court. Imperial Hubris is right! Every damn national Democratic Leader who does NOT speak out will NOT get my vote in the future. It's beyond time to CLEAN HOUSE even if it means suffering in the short run. Where are our DEMOCRATIC LEADERS?

NO WAY WITHIN A MONTH - arrogant ghouls dancing on the graves of NO while they make, yet another, POWER GRAB. :puke:

[amandabeech]

35. This has Rove all over it.

The announcement will distract the MSM away from NO for awhile. It gets the pictures off the screen, and it shows * doing something that Presidents are supposed to do.

[NashVegas]

33. Scalia Looks Good in Comparison

ugh. ugh. ugh.

[keopeli]

37. This is a good thing. Now Bush has no excuse NOT to turn over all the rec

records. Of course, he won't, and Roberts will be the new CJ, but that's going to happen anyway. But, at least it gives the Dems more material to work with. I think that's about all we can ask on this one.

Really, this was decided last November in the election.

[ElectroPrincess]

40. I guess all we can do as Americans ...

is love our neighbor and try to show compassion to those around us?

It's tragic to relive the fact that EVIL does triumph in the short term. No one on the Democratic side can match many of the Right Winger's callousness and cut throat politics. I honestly don't know how they can live with their cruel actions.

The End Justifies the Means for Right Wing Republicans? Indeed!

However, when all is said and done, I feel in my heart that God (or our higher power) will not disappoint. Let's all pray for continued empathy and perseverance to work for love and goodwill.

When the final chapter is written ---> "The first shall be last."

May God Bless and care for all those, poor, destitute and disenfranchised people of the world. :grouphug:

This is one liberal Catholic who finds herself in tears this morning ... it's time, at least for me, to work locally and let go of what I can NOT change ....to work and pray for love, compassion and justice. :hi:

[AlGore-08.com]

59. When Hatch mentioned this possibility yesterday, he said the opposite

Orrin Hatch was on CNN, being interviewed about Renquist's death, Hatch suggested Roberts would be a good nominee, and said that nominating him for Chief Justice would mean the Dems would have no excuse to keep demanding documents.

One of the reasons Smirk is doing this is because it will be relatively easy to portray any opposition to Roberts as flip-flopping, and - - since many Dems are on record as saying Roberts is acceptable/not going to be filibustered - - purely political.

[keopeli]

38. Remember, Roberts will be chief justice for a loooong time.

[YDogg]

39. Like 30-40 years ... kind of depressing, if he turns out to be horrible.

[AussieDave]

42. Now on CNN.com

http://us.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

[chelsea0011]

43. Now this is really using politics in the wake of Katrina

All week all we heard from the right was not to use politics when talking about Katrina. Code for don't ever criticize Bush for anything. Now comes the one big political act. Bush is basically daring the Dems and anti-Roberts crowd to just try to stop this nominee in the face of this American tragedy. Any dissent against Roberts will be met with "we need to get on with the getting this country back on it's feet and we need a CJ in place now!". can you here it?

[mamiesb2001]

44. Well, Bush sure responded to THIS situation quickly. Too bad he

didn't get off his ass to say or do anything as coherent re: the NOLA situation.

What an evil man.

[NuttyFluffers]

45. Whatever... He could put up a tangerine and it wouldn't phase me.

What does phase me is that america isn't rioting in the street about NOLA people dying (still dying) and not getting the care they need. Is this nation officially dead inside? Guess so...

Waiting for all but the maggots to finish off the corpse. It was a wonderful country, but the Man, the Man brought it all down.

[SillyGoose]

46. I don't get it. Roberts isn't even confirmed yet. Wouldn't it make more

sense to nominate one of the existing SC judges??

[cleveramerican]

47. Its not as foolish as it may seem.....

Dems in congress have already tipped their hand as far as opposition to Roberts and its pretty weak. Roberts has been under scrutiny for a few weeks and has held up rather well.
He's barely 50 and he has been held up to ridicule from both the extreme left and right which,to some, means he's perfect

[FreeStateDemocrat]

48. NYT/AP:Bush Nominates Roberts to Be Chief Justice

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 8:12 AM ET
President Bush today called on the Senate to confirm John G. Roberts before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3.

http://nytimes.com/

[Penndems]

49. What a surprise - NOT!

Junior's only been planning this since last October, when Renquist's battle with thyroid cancer was announced.

It was never his intention to "move quickly" to find Chief Justice Renquist's replacement, because Roberts moving into the vacancy was already a done deal, as far as the White House was concerned.

Who does he think he's kidding?

[Skarbrowe]

55. I called this right after Rehnquist died. Posted it somewhere on here.

But it was a no-brainer. He's the perfect choice for them.

[Penndems]

124. You're right

This WAS a no-brainer for them. The latest in a series of no-brainers.

[rocktivity]

50. He DOES want to push Katrina off the front pages, doesn't he?

He not only lacks experience, he has memory problems.

:eyes:
rocknation

[BiggJawn]

51. Bet this is a shock to Fat Tony Scalia....

And Clarence "There's a Pubic Hair in my Coke" Thomas....

[Cha]

52. This is freakin' Blatant!

It makes the rove machine via their little monkey look more Machiavellian and Calculatingly Cold than imagined.

They think they're so clever..they're just stealing more rope.

[Alpharetta]

54. the torture never stops

[Arkana]

56. Dammit, I KNEW he would do this!

Son of a bitch.

EDIT: Here's a link to the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus

[Stevious]

57. blah

but then that matches up Roberts with Rehnquist, so it's a net zero loss or gain in tems of balance on the court. Who will replace O'Connor now?

:hide:

[CatholicEdHead]

58. That is also what I was thinking

this will be for all pratical purposes a Push now. The next key instance is when O'Connor's replacment is named again.

[Stevious]

60. oh, and...

Did you notice how much faster Bush responded to Rehnquist's death than to the hurricane disaster victims? Shameful, isn't it?

[CatholicEdHead]

61. Yes I did, it was lightning fast

with the nomination but also putting the flags at half staff. All those deaths in NO and the Gulf Coast apparently are not enough to lower them.

[shanti]

129. probably someone

FAR worse. :scared:

[DrZeeLit]

157. Gonzalez

[Pepperbelly]

62. overall ... this is okay ...

Why?

Because it replaces Rhenquist with Roberts, an anti-choiace for an anti-choice. O'Conner will stay on for a while and at least we will not be replacing a pro-choice vote for an anti-choice vote.

We ain't gonna like ANYONE Nero nominates but at this point, this might be the best scenario for our side, considering the disparity in votes between them and us.

[TahitiNut]

66. No, it's not OK.

(1) It entrenches a far-right political posture on the SCOTUS for thirty more years! That's seven future Presidencies, and fifteen Congresses!
(2) The country is currently evenly split between 'conservative' and 'liberal' ... and two-to-one in support of Roe v. Wade ... and this appointment does not reflect the fact that we're a democracy, even in our highest laws.
(3) There is no such thing as a "mandate" in a democracy. A 51% President who imposes the extreme positions of some plurality even within that 51% on the majority of the country is acting, not in a democratic or even republican manner, but as an elected dictatorship. Elected representatives have the moral and ethical obligation to act in the majority interests on each broad issue and appointment while protecting the rights of the minority.

[Pepperbelly]

74. So you'd rather have both ....

seats occupied by anti-choicers?

That's what Nero will appoint. At this point, no one else has the authority to appoint them. What do you suggest?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

122. So, YOU'D rather kiss the FASCIST'S ASSES????

Is that what YOU'RE SAYING? Surrender? Capitulate? It sure sounds like it to me.

Keep running away until you're in the overwhelming majority, all while LOSING every battle and every skirmish and more and more fighters.

Gee... don't fire back when you're outnumbered, it might piss them off, right?


How do you like it when someone TELLS YOU WHAT YOU THINK?

[Pepperbelly]

125. If you had read my reply before it was deleted ...

you would have known quite clearly.

Your position is bereft of validity. You are talking shit rather than observing what is true. I do not think the nomination should be fillibustered. Are you going to try to run me off, too?

I am not attempting to distort what you said. I am telling you the result of your "strategy" although very clearly, the distinction seems to elude you. If we do what you want, within a month, there will be two new anti-choice votes on the court, rather than one. Is that what you want?

[TahitiNut]

130. Total FUCKING bullshit!

(1) I ALWAYS read before I respond! DON"T FUCKING EVER IMPLY I DON'T!!

(2) It's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS (as you pontificated) what my personal financial condition is -- and I WON'T tolerate any BULLSHIT characterizations of my mythical financial well-being or lack thereof from others under some guise of 'discussion'!!

(3) I gave a totally lucid and complete response to people WHO PRETEND TO VIEW THE FUTURE as some cowardly excuse for running away from stances based on principle ... a response that was (wrongfully!) removed!

(4) Every fucking time someone says "oh, that's OK ... it'd be worse if we fight" ... they get something EVEN WORSE than what they ran away from.

The difference between a "strategic retreat" and a FULL-BLOWN ROUT (a la Bull Run) is cowardice ... and the failure to BOTH (a) fight a rear-guard actions and (b) use the delay to set up a FIRM DEFENSIVE position past which you won't retreat.

The Senate Democrats are in a FULL-BLOWN ROUT. There is no rear-guard action and there is no demonstration whatsoever that they have any intention whatsoever to dig in. None.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

140. Are you even capable of posting without PERSONAL ATTACKS???

"I really don't care how touchy you are."??? That's insulting and a personal attack.

"Are you too obtuse to see the difference?" That's insulting and a personal attack.

"...the science of counting eludes you..." That's insulting and a personal attack.

"... your proclivity for political suicide." That's insulting and a personal attack.

Are you so bereft of intelligence and education that you cannot comprehend what I've validly and pointedly responded? Are you totally ignorant of deontological vs. teleological ethics?? Does your ethical position totally depend upon your perfect ability to read minds and predict the future?? Where did you get your crystal balls???

And just what makes you think there's only one issue??? Are you running out of litmus test strips???

[Pepperbelly]

144. Give what I get ...

and you only get one free fucking shot. You used that in the deleted post.

If you are comfortable enough to worry about "deontological vs. teleological ethics", your world view puts you at odds with MY people, the working poor. And if we can maintain Roe for an addtional six months, then I am down with it. Maybe something else will come along about O'Conner's seat.

One more thing, hot shot ... I am working poor. I work with working poor. And none of my associates ... the one's left most behind in the current USA would be affected positively by your sort of let-the-devil-take-the-hindmost bullshit activism.

Your crystal ball bullshit is as dishonest as it is stupid. Can you not fucking count votes right now? No crystal ball there. O'Conner will uphold Roe. Rhenquist did not. Trade a anti-choice for an anti-choice. If you cannot add that up, then your talk about accdusations about ignorance appear to be directed at yourself in a mirror.

BTW, on edit, your lecturing me about personal attacks is as rich as Bush lecturing someone on greed.

[TahitiNut]

151. Oh, I get it. We must be self-righteous blue-collar ELITISTS, huh?

If it's something you don't understand, then it MUST BE the "world view" of someone who doesn't work and isn't poor, huh? Fight elitism with elitism, huh? Since you (say you) work then anyone who disagrees with you must not work, huh? Since (you say) you're "poor," then anyone who disagrees with you must not be poor, huh?

Never mind the FACT that you're WRONG! Even so, it's fucking IRRELEVANT! NOBODY needs to "prove" their argument by BELONGING to some demographic! Nobody!

Whether a person is rich or poor, working or idle. male or female -- IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY of their position! That's what makes your posts PERSONAL ATTACKS!! It doesn't require name-calling to be a PERSONAL ATTACK. Try reading up on Ad Hominems! When you require PERSONAL information (or invent it yourself) to form your opinion about the person's views, you've gone off the reservation and into PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Furthermore, if you don't comprehend the language, use a fucking dictionary. Look it up! There's NOTHING irrelevant about "deontological vs. teleological ethics." The Bushoilini's are 100% teleological (utilitarians). As far as they're concerned, if it works for them then it's OK. Period. You demean and dismiss what you don't understand -- without knowing it's at the heart of why you're getting FUCKED!!!

Well, that's a nice, comfortable bunch of FALSE BELIEFS that will rationalize appalling behavior, especially for the "ends justifies the means" consequentialists.

You've treated the Reproductive Choice issue not only as some single litmus test, but completely CARTOONISHLY. "Choice" isn't a black or white issue when it comes to SCOTUS. It's a wide range of grays. O'Conner was just as willing to ERODE the "right to privacy" as Scalia and Rehnquist, even if not as far. You have no assurance whatsoever what Roberts will do. I believe it's FAR MORE LIKELY that Roberts will take positions even more EXTREME than Scalia or Rehnquist. Indeed, I'm far more willing to "go nuclear" in the Senate if only because he poses a serious threat to Roe v. Wade and our right to personal privacy and all the plutocratic, fascist baggage that comes with him!!!

The time is NOW to pull out all the stops and DEMAND more moderate appointments - more respectful of the ENTIRE nation's human rights and less of a slave to the entitlements of wealth!! The Democrats have retreated wayyyy to far.

[Pepperbelly]

153. self-delete ...

[really annoyed]

154. Thank you

Great post. Class has nothing to do with altruism. But of course, that view can't be understood by somebody who works in views of black and white.

Anyway, this whole nomination of Roberts for Chief is odd to me. I figured somebody already on the Court would be picked.

[really annoyed]

146. self-delete

I don't want to bother the working-class hero.

[Why Syzygy]

160. Well I agree

Where have all the democrats gone? They didn't do shit for Clinton or Gore. Let the impeachment go forward, election stolen. :boring:
For George FUBAR, they are willing to cast "yeah" votes all day long.
I don't get it.

Let the next impeachment begin.

[bain_sidhe]

143. another reason it's not ok

One Robe, Two Hats
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/621/yls_article.htm

Some excerpts:

To look only at the chief justice’s role within the Supreme Court, however, is to ignore his authority over the federal judiciary and his influence in Congress. In essence, the chief justice is the chief executive officer of a bureaucracy of some 1,200 life-tenured judges, 850 more magistrate and bankruptcy judges, and a staff of 30,000. He is the chair of the policy-setting body - the Judicial Conference of the United States - that establishes the priorities for the federal judiciary, including overseeing its budget, now about $5.43 billion annually.

<…>

The chief justice also picks the judges who serve on federal tribunals like the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (with the power to permit deportation of legal aliens suspected of aiding terrorism) and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (with authority to consolidate cases pending across the federal system involving topics from toxic torts to antitrust violations). <…> And the chief justice selects the 11 judges who sit for seven-year terms on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which since its creation in 1978 has approved over 10,000 government requests for surveillance warrants.

The chief also picks the 255 people who sit on the 24 committees of the judiciary, including those that make the rules for litigants. Whether a civil litigant, a prosecutor, a criminal defendant or a bankruptcy petitioner, litigants must comply with requirements described in federal rules, all crafted by committees whose members are selected by the chief.

There’s much more at the article, but the main point (IMHO) is, nominating Roberts would insure long-term control over this apparatus.

(**edited for copy/paste error**)

[Lorien]

64. Our talking point: * can't be trusted in his choices for top posts

look at FEMA and Homeland security.

[Straight Shooter]

68. Yes, but that's a logical talking point. Repubs don't respond to logic.

Thus the mess we're in. They wear concrete blinders and asphalt earplugs. There is no getting through to them. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

[nookiemonster]

65. Once again, can I reitterate?

Bush..does...not...care...

[emad]

70. Guardian story:

Lawyer leapfrogs judges for top court job

James Sturcke
Monday September 5, 2005


George Bush today nominated lawyer John Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as US chief justice.
Mr Roberts, a softly spoken conservative, had been the US president's nomination to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the nine-member supreme court. But the death of Mr Rehnquist on Saturday presented Mr Bush with the opportunity to promote Mr Roberts directly to the top job.

"Those who work with John Roberts speak with admiration of his striking abilities as a lawyer and natural gifts as a leader," Mr Bush said at the White House. "He has earned the nation's confidence. I am pleased to announce him as my nomination for the 17th chief justice of the supreme court."


Mr Roberts' confirmation hearing had been due to start tomorrow for him to replace Ms O'Connor, who announced earlier this year that she would retire from the country's highest court. But rather than promoting one of the current judges of the court, such as Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, Mr Bush opted to transfer Mr Roberts' nomination to the top job.

Mr Bush said it was important "for the court and country" that the position was filled before the court reconvened in early October. He said he was "confident" the Senate would pass the nomination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1563174,00.html

[OneBlueSky]

71. we must NOT let this happen! . . . Bush is a liar, a thief, and . . .

a murderer, not to mention an illegitimate president . . . he has no business nominating ANYONE to anything, particularly the Supreme Court . . . we need to get creative and stop this atrocity, or we'll be living with neo-conservatism for the next 40 years . . .

[Why Syzygy]

161. And that would mean

no disaster relief. Although he starts one at every opportunity.

Hang on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen.

[VADem11]

72. Crap

He'll be there for decades. Anyone else appalled at how quickly Bush moved? Plus, he said Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and not Chief Justice of the United States. Typical mistake for him.

[countingbluecars]

73. Most likely Roberts was slated to be Chief Justice

from the very beginning. I wonder if they were hoping that Rehnquist would hold on until after Roberts was nominated?

[GeorgeGist]

76. More than one can play Karl's game...

we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." :evilgrin:

[Nightwing]

77. Link to Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice

What a disgusting but not unanticipated move by ass hat. This must not stand!!


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Just 50 years old, Roberts could shape the court for decades to come.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.

[Nightwing]

78. Dupe post, sorry

This news just borke and noticed someone got it before I did. No way in hell to Roberts!!

[Nightwing]

79. Link here

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus

[growlypants]

80. How can that ASS BU$H think Roberts has enough BENCH EXPERIENCE

to be CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES??? Christ. Thasts tantamount to making the QB from the pee wee league the starting QB of the NE PAtriots. ITs ridiculous. We're screwed.

[rwenos]

81. Rehnquist and Lewis Powell Had Never Been Judges

Neither had Louis Brandeis.

[growlypants]

83. total disgrace. Like I said....screwed. this country has lost its mind

[cloud_chaser1]

85. Why should this be a surprise?

We have been screwed from the day Bush took the oath of President for his first term. This is just another example of Bush taking the easy way out. Take a man with no judicial experience and nominate them to the highest court and then just a few months later, nominate that same man to the top office in the top court. This way Bush doesnt have to think and he doesnt have to do any extra work and most of all, its yet another way for him to thumb his nose at America.

[Why Syzygy]

163. Yeah I'm surprised he had a C Average at Yale

I would have flunked him. Like now.

[growlypants]

82. And it sure didnt take that incompetent prick FIVE DAYS to get around

to doing that now, did it??? Im simply dumbfounded.

[Nightwing]

84. I'm sick to my stomach over this

This is not good news and bodes ill for the future of this nation. Thanks for ruining Labor Day you self serving piece of shit!!!

Dems had better grow a set soon or I will really be pissed. No way does Roberts deserve this; hell, he doesnt deserve to be a USSC Justice for that matter.

[growlypants]

86. Im reading a book on ADolf Hitler right now, and the comparrisons

to this administration are frightening. Hilter surrounded himself with YES MEN, which is exactly what Bu$H has done. He gave men of little experience very important positions in the govt knowing that they would simply be tools for him to use. Rove is just like Gobbels. Frightening.

[AceAlmighty82]

88. Bush nominates John Roberts for CJ

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus

WASHINGTON -
President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Just 50 years old, Roberts could shape the court for decades to come.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.

If Katrina wasn't enough...now we got to deal with this.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

89. Please Dems, NO VOTE TILL THE WH RELEASES HIS PAPERS

:grr:

[54anickel]

90. That headline makes it sound like a done deal. Did they change it

from when you posted? It now reads, "Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice".

[jamesinca]

91. DUPE

This one went up quick

[Avalux]

92. *What's up with your subject line?*

It's NOT the title of the article, and inaccurately reflects the story. I suggest you change it as it misleading.

[ElectroPrincess]

93. The title reflects the ongoing thread - this is a DUPE /eom

[AceAlmighty82]

94. that was my bad

first time poster..in the fact of putting up a post

:hide:

[ElectroPrincess]

96. Awe, I'm sorry ... we all goof-up at times ... welcome to DU :-) /eom

[Pachamama]

136. Is * f*cking crazy? Oh, yeah, dumb question....

Nothing, nothing surprises me anymore....

[Up2Late]

95. Bush taps Roberts as chief justice (AFP)

(I wonder if this is his way of Killing Roberts nomination? Or are we just to say, "Well, at least he didn't pick Scalia.")

Bush taps Roberts as chief justice

05/09/2005 15h09

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush nominated conservative Judge John Roberts, whom he had already tapped for a seat on the Supreme Court, to replace the late chief justice William Rehnquist.

"I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month," when the court resumes work, Bush said on Monday in a hastily called public appearance in the White House Oval Office.

Bush, who had picked Roberts to replace justice Sandra Day O'Connor after she announced in July that she was retiring, said he would announce a new nominee to replace her "in a timely manner."

The chief justice sets the tone for the court, which is often called upon to decide volatile issues like abortion and civil rights, and played a key role in Bush's controversial victory in the 2000 presidential election.

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050905123322.mkmca4g6.html>
(more at link above)

[Nightwing]

98. Bad news for ANY Dem that caves on Roberts

I will have nothing to do with any Dem that does not stand up to these back biting corporate bullies. A lot of hell had better be given to * and his nominee must be shot down in flames.

I am so pissed it's difficult to find the words to express my anger. The DLC had better move swift on it's response to this bull shit and it better have teeth that bite!

[opihimoimoi]

97. Sheer ARROGANCE and IGNORANCE at work here..Both Unqualied

for their respective job and nominated Position.

[DrZeeLit]

102. They all knew Rehnquist was dying. A waiting game. This was the plan.

And I'll bet Gonzalez is next.

[gokar]

103. FIRST smart move by Bushit in 6 years..................

This means only 2 senate confirmation hearings instead of 3.
If Scalia was nominated for CJ then that would have been the 3rd
hearing.

[davepc]

133. If he was smart he would of nominated Ginsberg for Chief Justice

It would of taken a little backroom dealing in the senate, but in return for a liberal chief justice bush could broker clear sailing for his two nominations.

Extremists on both sides would of screamed bloody murder, but both side s would of gotten something out of it, which would make it go down easier to the big mass in the middle.

Instead he's going to have two pitched battles.

He'll get whoever he wants anyways because simply the majority rests with the Republican party in the Senate.

I'm no fan of Roberts. But i've always been curious about who we think we're going to get if he gets shot down.

Bush simply isn't going to nominate ANYBODY that the Democratic party faithful will embrace.

[Why Syzygy]

164. It still means three

Posted upthread .. the two SCOTUS confirmations = 2. The CJ = 1.
Three hearings. The CJ might just be a paperwork shuffle. But still, the sum is 3 already.

[LynneSin]

105. Nothing like pissing off Scalia and Thomas plus....

...nothing like nominating someone who is in his 40s that could be there for the next 40 years. At least Scalia & Thomas are in their late 50s and hopefully won't server as long.

No Bush wants Roberts because after Bush is gone Roberts will be there for DECADES afterwards

[lebkuchen]

110. Bush needed to make a big media splash to divert attention away

from Katrina. I think that's why he did it--desperate to change the subject. Bush is getting CREAMED with calls to the WH, letters to editors and congressmen, you name it, due to his disastrous lack of leadership.

[Placebo]

108. He's too young and too inexperienced.

Why not nominate someone who's on the court already? That makes a lot more sense.

[leesa]

109. Do you think anyone will stop to think of the costs of appointing friends

and donors to impotant positions they are not qualified for?

Like, say, Mr Brown, or Mr Chertoff? Was there a lesson there, America??

[NNguyenMD]

111. Dem Senators gotta realize that * has no political capital left, they

ought to know that they can give Roberts the middle finger and call him a motherf*cking waste of oxygen and no one would make a fuss out of it. That was the gall the Repubs had during the Clinton nominations, I see why they Dems don't realize this.

[journalist3072]

114. I am imploring everyone here...

To please write your 2 Senators. As a D.C. resident, I have no representation in the Senate; no one to write.

So I am asking you to please do it on my behalf.

Each of you needs to write your Senators and tell them to stop the Roberts nomination.

This White House has outright refused to produce many documents relative to Roberts, that have been requested by Democratic Senators. And now that Bush wants to make Roberts Chief Justice, it is even more important than ever to get a hold of those documents.

I know that Sen. Boxer said she would use all the parlimentary tools at her disposal if she had to. I hope she does that.

[ochazuke]

121. Must be filibustered

We need a moderate nominee, not a fascist.

[The Blue Knight]

127. Roberts is hardly a "fascist."

People on this board just love to throw that word around. Roberts is about as close to a fascist as John Kerry is a communist.

This Chief Justice appt. needs to be blocked at all costs. The filibuster must be used. Hopefully Dick Durbin can hold the moderates in line on this one.

[tinrobot]

126. At least it's not Scalia

Just sayin'

[bling bling]

131. I kind of agree with that.

At least with Roberts we can have a speck of hope that he won't be a Thomas or Scalia.

[Why Syzygy]

165. A JUDGE

is supposed to be IMPARTIAL. IOW. he looks at the law.. looks at the facts presented at trial and comes up with a VERDICT! ta da

That's what makes America great. We all get a fair trial. Don't we. Someone pass that along to FUBAR.

[renate]

148. I agree too

I'm enjoying thinking about the kind of day Scalia is having.
:nopity:

[LiveWire]

128. Thats cool, he'll preside over Bush's impeachment trial

Talk about stacking the deck.

[KamaAina]

134. I guess Kanye was right.

I was sure King Dumbass** was gonna pick Uncle Thomas for Chief Justice, just to show how deeply he cares about black people, from the bottom of his heart. :sarcasm:

[StevieM]

135. It beats Clarence Thomas (eom)

x

[demwing]

137. Justice Stevens Will Be In Charge

The most senior Justice takes over when the Chief is not present.

Bush obviously wants Stevens out of the way, therefore the rush to Chief Justice, pardon the pun.

But why the tears over Roberts?

I expected much worse from W. Much, much worse.

We could have Scalia as Chief, Roberts replacing O'Connor, and a Scalia clone to replace Tony.

Some people are never satisfied unless they run around declaring the sky is falling.

[despairing optimist]

142. A very shrewd move on the Bushistas' part

It's more of an "even exchange," one conservative justice for another, and it leaves open the issue of O'Connor's swing vote. The packaging will be appealing to the Democrats, who practically fall over one another showing how "moderate" or "centrist" they are and fearing any dissent will get them labeled "far left," "obstructionist," "out of touch," or even "un-American." It removes the need for Bush to pony up the missing documents on Roberts because it gives the Democratic leadership an out: we'll save the fight for O'Connor's replacement and won't give Roberts too hard a time.

Do I like this move? Of course not. But as Bush would say, who cares what I think? I'm not saying that the Democrats shouldn't fight it; I'm saying that they probably know it won't change the outcome. But as someone said up-thread, it's important to go on the record as fighting for principles, if anyone has any principles left in Congress anymore.

Let's see what shrewd move the Democrats come up with concerning Roberts and the O'Connor vacancy-to-be. Why am I hearing echoes of 1968? That was a busy and bad year too, but at least the music was good.

[Why Syzygy]

166. haha

you used "democrats" and "shrewd" in the same sentence!
Oxymoron alert.

[necso]

145. If chimpy has

nominated Roberts for Chief Justice, then doesn't that mean he (Roberts) is really replacing Rehnquist?

And shouldn't O'Connor's replacement be confirmed first?

[6000eliot]

152. Are they trying to save a third confirmation hearing?

[onenote]

167. you are absolutely right - they don't want a third hearing

If they elevated Thomas or Scalia, they'd have to go through a separate confirmation hearing. That's where Abe Fortas got tripped up. I have to wonder whether they fear that there is some financial or other impropriety hidden in Scalia and/or Thomas' closet that they don't want to risk coming out in a new confirmation hearing.

onenote

[fortyfeetunder]

155. Another...interesting timing

Naming Roberts CJ while NOLA drowns. Thought it would slip right by, eh?

While he's out naming folks, he ought to be looking for a more qualified FEMA head...

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.