Bush Nominates Roberts As Chief Justice Sep 5, 8:08 AM (ET) By JENNIFER LOVEN WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 Surpeme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Roberts, who once clerked for Rehnquist, said he would be honored, "to succeed a man I deeply respect and admire." Last quote is a compete fabrication, methinks. Good PR though and Roberts might even have that opinion.
So a man with approximately two years of legal experience will be the highest Justice in the nation? Is anyone else a little confused about this selection? I honestly wonder how he will interprete the constitution. I cannot tell at this point if he will with a strict constitutionalist view or a partisan one. While abortion may not be the most important issue to me, the people who ultimately put President Bush back into office do view it is as such. I feel confident in saying Bush would not have been re-elected without the gay marriage initiatives that were also on the ballot. I do not mean to stereotype, but a lot of individuals that did not want gay marriage in their respective states would also show strong support against banning of all abortions. Abortion, to me, is a legitimate medicial procedure. By banning it, they will affect the women who have pregnancy complications and cannot have her fetus removed. Aside from abortion, why does Mr. Roberts deserve the support from the far right? And ultimately, why does Mr. Roberts deserve the support from the rest of the spectrum? I would love to get as much information about this man before they allow him to ultimately the highest position in the united states government.
Bush knows how he will interpret the Constitution. You should not be confused. Bush while trying to dress himself as a moderate has consistently gone the other way from Ashcroft, to Wolfowitz at the World Bank, to Bolton at the UN, to Iraq, to the environment, and on and on. Everyone should understand by now.
so i guess chief justice has nothing to do w/ senority? if i was one of the other justices i might feel a tad slighted. how can they "haze" the new guy if the new guy is the chief?
things just go from bad to worse in this country......the fool has 2 yrs more experience than i do at being a judge.....and this f*cking imbecile in the WH wants to make him chief supreme court justice
From the POV of right-wing politics it is a great move since Roberts is only 50 and could be chief justice for the next 35 years! Sure Bush could appoint Scalia instead but he is 68 so an old man. Nominating a young Scalia-like justice who to be the chief judicial officer of the USA is brilliant. But I do agree though. From a pure "qualification" POV, I feel that he is certainly not yet qualified to be CJ. To have the youngest, least experienced person on the SCOTUS to be the "chief" is a bit ridiculous.
I think he is a bright person, as long as he can be use good judgement and not just pure political ideals I am fine with him. Of course he will be conservative but that is to be expected.
At least, GWB did not nominate Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice. There is a silver lining to every cloud.
I like the guy alright. He seems like he's actually a decent choice for the SC. But, this practice of bringing in a new guy to be chief justice is ****ed up. I'd much prefer they make someone currently sitting be the chief. They've done it this way for a long time, but it's still dumb.
I disagree. I think that the only choice better than Roberts would have been Thomas because Thomas isn't much older than Roberts, but at the same time has the "experience factor."
not knowing much about how the chief justice comes to be the chief justice, i didn't know that. it seems weird to just throw someone right in there as the main guy but maybe there's a good reason.
