No. From Wikipedia: How Cases are Picked: The Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it. In some limited circumstances specified by law, the losing party may directly appeal the decision of a lower court to the Supreme Court. In most instances, however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The writ is granted if at least four out of the nine Justices vote to hear the case. In a majority of cases, the writ is denied; the Supreme Court normally only considers matters of national or constitutional importance. If the Court refuses to grant certiorai, it does not comment on the merits of the case; however, the decision of the lower court is affirmed. The Duties of the Chief Justice: In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties: The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years he or she has served. In any vote, the most senior Justice in the majority has the power to decide who will write the Opinion of the Court. Since the Chief Justice is always considered the most senior member, if he or she is in the majority then the Chief Justice may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or assign it to some other member of the majority of his or her choice (the Opinion must still receive the votes of a majority of Justices after being written; on occasion votes have been known to switch depending on the written drafts, making someone else's draft the Opinion of the Court). Chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and voted on by the Justices. The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion. The Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside when the Senate tries an impeachment of the President of the United States. Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over the trial in the Senate that follows an impeachment of the President – Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceedings against President Bill Clinton. Presides over the impeachment trial of the Vice President if the Vice President is serving as Acting President (no Vice President has been impeached, though Spiro Agnew resigned under threat of impeachment, and none has been Acting President for more than a few hours). Administers the oath of office at the inauguration of the President of the United States. This is a traditional, not a constitutional, responsibility of the Chief Justice. All federal and state judges, as well as notaries public, are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations. Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution. Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to promulgate rules to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.
Words are cheap. Roberts began his career in politics. I am concerned that he will become a *political* judge on the Supreme Court much like Scalia.
I think that Democrats pretty have no choice but to largely vote for Roberts. While Roberts is definitely a conservative on the mold of Rehnquist, he is also replacing Rehnquist and therefore there is really no net gain for the right. Roberts has also been very skillful in his testimony not to give any ammo for people to denounce him outright like was the case with Bork so Dems would seem "unreasonable" in voting him down. In the end, nothing is changed with Roberts replacing Rehnquist, so might as well buy yourself political capital by voting him in. The real key appointment will be the replacement of John Paul Stevens. He is old and likely not to last before Bush is out. Replacing Stevens with someone like Roberts, now THAT would have a tremendous impact on the SCOTUS.
Really. I think the whole lot should vote against Roberts as Chief Justice, due to his lack of judicial experience. If they stand together now, a threatened filibuster down the road is more believable.
JUDGE ROBERTS NO REHNQUIST By Pastor Chuck Baldwin September 20, 2005 NewsWithViews.com Conservatives everywhere, including leaders of the Religious Right, are fawning over President Bush's nominee to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Judge John Roberts. They are praising Roberts as a "conservative," a "strict constructionist," and are even calling him "pro-life." However, Roberts' personal statements and judicial track record reveal something entirely different. First, unlike Justice Rehnquist, Roberts has said or done nothing to indicate that he objects to the Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. Instead, "John Roberts pledged to respect established ruling if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying judges must recognize that their role is 'not to solve society's problems.'" (Source: NewsMax.com) If Roberts can be taken at his word, he considers the Roe v Wade decision "settled law" and, therefore, would do nothing to overturn it. (By way of comparison, it would be interesting to know if he also would feel that the Dred Scott decision legalizing slavery was "settled law" and, therefore, worthy of "respect.") This conclusion is also shared by conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer. In The Buffalo News, Krauthammer wrote, "I predict two things: (a) Chief Justice Roberts will vote to uphold Roe v Wade, and (b) his replacing his former boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, will move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left-as measured by the only available yardstick, the percent of concurrences with the opinions of those conservative touchstones, Scalia and Thomas. I infer this not just by what Roberts has said in his hearings-that he supports Griswold v Connecticut, that he respects precedent, that he finds Roe itself worthy of respect. I infer it from his temperament, career and life history as an establishment conservative who prizes judicial modesty above all. Which means while he will never repeat Roe, he will never repeal it and be the cause of the social upheaval that repeal would bring." Krauthammer is not the only conservative to understand that the Roe decision is not threatened by a Roberts appointment. Leading Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts cannot be counted on to vote to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision that legalized abortion." This statement was made on Fox News Sunday and reported by Tyler, Texas ABC affiliate KLTV. Therefore, those conservatives who are claiming that President Bush "kept his promise" to appoint a conservative, pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court are either woefully ignorant of the real John Roberts or are willing to support him simply because Bush appointed him. However, the dissimilarity between Roberts and Rehnquist does not end with the abortion issue. While Justice Rehnquist was a consistent foe of pro-homosexual rulings by the court, Roberts' track record on the subject reveals something vastly different. "[C]oncerning the 'pro-bono' work which Judge Roberts did for Lambda Legal Defense, a homosexual activist group, in the run-up to a pro-homosexual decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Romer v. Evans, Roberts made clear that he found nothing morally objectionable in abetting the sodomite cause." (Source: Howard Phillips) It is more than interesting that Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire even though the questionnaire specifically asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work. Furthermore, long time Roberts friend, Edward Lazarus, expresses the view that John Roberts would share practically nothing in common with conservative justices Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas. Lazarus said, "Putting politics aside, the current Court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer." It could be argued that Breyer is more liberal than even David Souter or Anthony Kennedy! The bottom line is, G.W. Bush has done what he has been doing for over five years: pulling the wool over the eyes of conservatives, leading them to believe he shares their values and principles, all the while making decisions that prove just the opposite. Should Roberts be confirmed as the Supreme Court's next Chief Justice (and I'm sure he will), he will doubtless do exactly what Mr. Lazarus predicted and turn the court further leftward. That means unborn babies will continue to be legally murdered, homosexuality will continue to enjoy most-favored-lifestyle status, there will be more Eminent Domain rulings, and even more egregious Patriot Act-style rulings. However, it could even get worse. Bush has already thrown out Alberto Gonzales' name to replace Sandra Day O'Connor! May God help us, because we are certainly getting no help from the Republicans in Washington, D.C. or from the leaders of the Religious Right! © 2005 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Reid has now made this a travishamockery. I guess if you don't like someone's political leanings, or if you think you can make some political hay out of it, that makes them unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Politics as usual, I guess. Too bad Katrina didn't hit inside the beltway.
homosexuality will continue to enjoy most-favored-lifestyle status Homosexuals would disagree with this assessment of their current situation.
I think Reid got out ahead of this by coming out against Roberts. Other Democratic Senators can judge from the pounding that Reid will take the cost benefit of voting for/against Roberts. Roberts imo does not have the experience need to be Chief Justice. We all should expect more.
Did you watch the Ginsberg hearings? Because if you did you would know that she didn't answer most of the questions asked of her......LOL
I read the transcripts nitwit...LOL....perhaps you can scrounge up some evidence to backup your BS assertion that "she didn't answer most of the questions" now....LOL..
