Roberts As Chief Justice Means O'Connor Stays On Court For Now

[ruggerson]

Sandra Day O'Connor resigned effective only when her successor is nominated and confirmed.

Since Bush has now shifted Robert's nomination to Rehnquist's vacancy, there is no nominee, much less a confirmed one, for O'Connor's seat.

This means that O'Connor will still be on the bench for many of the contentious issues to be decided in this upcoming term, so for now the balance on the court remains exactly as it was.

Additionally, the Dems now have more leeway to fight a potentially hard right O'Connor replacement - especially if Roberts sails through the process, an eventuality which looks more and more likely.

Bush may have realized he has less and less political capital, and did not want to have to go through three separate confirmation hearings by nominating Scalia for Chief Justice.

When the Freepers realize O'Connor will stay on the bench this term, they will go bonkers.

[still_one]

1. what makes you think that he won't appoint her replacement soon?

[ruggerson]

2. Because Roberts has to go through a confirmation process

He may appoint O'Connor's replacement soon, but the replacement won't be confirmed for many months, probably not until 06. O'Connor has indicated she won't leave until her successor is CONFIRMED. It says so in her letter of resignation.

[still_one]

3. I hope you are right

and I hope the democrats do their job for once during the confirmation hearings

[ruggerson]

6. Since Roberts looks like he'll probably be confirmed

by a wide margin. This gives Democrats great leeway to fight like hell if Bush appoints a Priscilla Owen or a Janice Brown to replace O'Connor. Politically it gives them cover, because they can refute the obstructionist argument by saying 'hey, look, we voted Roberts in no problem'.

I don't think this is how Bush would have liked things to turn out. I think he was forced to nominate Roberts for CJ because his political capital is shrinking and shrinking, due to Iraq and Katrina.

[CityDem]

16. Not likely

Bush will nominate someone to fill the new vacancy very soon. The White House staff has been ready for the Rehnquist and O'Connor retirements for 3-4 years. Look for Roberts to be confirmed by late September or early October. If Bush nominates someone within the next week for O'Connor's slot, the confirmation hearings will begin in about 5-6 weeks and assuming the nominee is qualified, we will have 9 justices on the court sometime in November.

[randr]

4. I think the process for Chief Justice nominee is separate

from the appointment.
Roberts will face the appointment hearings to replace O'Connor and separate hearing will take place for his selection as CJ.
This still leaves the Rehnquist positon open for another wing nut appointment and you can bet it will be a doozy.
Ken Starr anyone!

[ruggerson]

7. No, you're mistaken

the hearings will now be to replace Rehnquist. The hearings to replace O'Connor will be held only after Bush nominates someone and the Senate schedules the hearings. It will be months down the road.

[cascadiance]

12. I think though that naming Rehnquist's replacment and CJ are separate...

It was LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas as CJ that was what Republicans fillibustered back in the 60's. He still was on the court I think then.

I still think that Dem's should perhaps allow Bush to get Roberts through, but not allow him to be named CJ and try to get O'Connor named CJ on at least an interim basis until at least 2006 elections happen.

[ruggerson]

14. Rehnquist was the CJ

this announcement means Roberts is now nominated for CJ. One hearing. They are not separate.

[William769]

5. I'm just glad that assbag Scalia wasn't nominated.

[ruggerson]

8. Yep, Roberts is better than Scalia

Scalia would have been a disaster. Roberts doesn't change the status quo at all.

[kedrys]

9. Can't remember where I read it, but didn't Scalia threaten to quit if

he didn't get the Chief Justice nod?

[AuntieM1957]

10. hope he follows thru on that one.

then he can spend more time releasing stress with the orgy thing.

God, that's an ugly mental image.

[cascadiance]

11. Dems have some leverage now with Stevens CJ for the time being...

If there is current business the Rethugs feel threatening (like Sibel Edmonds' case) which might get supported by a Stevens' lead 8 person court, he will want to get a CJ and/or Roberts to fill the vacancy soon to prevent that happening. If Dems are smart, they'd realize this, and threaten to fillibuster anything unless O'Connor gets named as CJ (at least for an interim period of say until the 2006 election takes place or shortly afterward). If Bush were to accept that deal, then they'd let Roberts' nomination go through.

That deal would let Rethugs win by not having Stevens give in effect the liberal 4 justices an effective majority on existing business, having someone like O'Connor be the deciding vote instead of Stevens, and get the conservatives 5 votes instead of 4. Dem's would win in a way that even though O'Connor's nomination wouldn't be permanent, and Bush would get another chance at putting his own guy in when she does step down later, it would be after they could potentially retake congress (or at least get more strength there) in 2006. And if she's there long enough, and the impeachment trial could get started earlier, she would be overseeing it, and not one of Bush's more favored choices.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

13. I think the filibuster deal is off

Two simultaneous vacancies qualifies as extraordinary circumstances if you ask me. Filibuster Roberts until WH provides all the documentation (there is precedent for this on Bolton), and filibuster the new nominee until Roberts is confirmed or withdrawn.

[Bumblebee]

15. here's a pretty good analysis

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Roberts-Analysis.html

[ruggerson]

17. Yep, and their major point is

that Bush does not have the leeway with the new appointment to get soemone confirmed who is stridently rightwing, his position is far weaker than it was six months ago.

Having said that, this guy is notoriously obstinate, to the point of self destruction, and he might choose to go down in flames with a Janice Rogers Brown rather than initially appoint someone more moderate. I have yet to see an instance where he opted for compromise over rigid rightwing ideology.

[cascadiance]

18. We should push for a fillibuster until at least through October...

So that we can keep the 8 justice, Stevens led court in place until either Bush backs off the Robert's CJ nomination, or hopefully Sibel Edmonds can be heard and win her appeal to open up all of these states secrets gagged cases.