What The Hell

You can call me crazy, but this is another one of those moments where I wonder if Bush has a big wheel that he uses to make decisions because I am not sure if I follow the rationale on this one.

This is also going to drive the the conspiracy theorists a little meshugah. It seems to me that prior to becoming Chief Justice one should actually serve on the court. I’d blog more about this but I am off to birthday parties and barbecues.

Bush nominates Roberts as chief justice

“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Moving quickly to fill the vacancy left by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s death, President Bush on Monday nominated Judge John Roberts to the nation’s top judicial post.”It is fitting that a great chief justice be followed in office by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution, his profound respect for the Supreme Court and his complete devotion to the cause of justice,” Bush said from the White House, with the judge by his side.

“I am honored and humbled by the confidence that the president has shown in me,” Roberts said.”And I’m very much aware that, if I am confirmed, I would succeed a man that I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years.”

Roberts accepted the offer in a meeting with Bush on Monday morning, a senior administration official said.

The move came a day before the Senate was to begin confirmation hearings to consider Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring.

It remained unclear how the nomination would affect plans for confirmation hearings.

Since his nomination for associate justice earlier this summer, Roberts has garnered praise from many Republicans.

After Bush’s announcement Monday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, issued a statement saying the president “has made an excellent choice; Mr. Roberts is one of the most well qualified candidates to come before the Senate.”

No Democrats have said they would reject Roberts when he was named to succeed O’Connor, but some have said they have many important questions to ask him in the Senate’s confirmation hearings.

“This nomination certainly raises the stakes in making sure that the American people and the Senate know Judge Roberts’ views fully before he assumes perhaps the second most powerful position in the United States,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee’s Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee, in a written statement.

“Judge Roberts has a clear obligation to make his views known fully and completely at the hearings, and we look forward to them.”

Bush called on the Senate to confirm Roberts within a month. The high court begins its new term the first Monday in October.”

(Visited 49 times, 1 visits today)


  1. BarbaraFromCalifornia September 6, 2005 at 2:13 pm

    Actually soccerdad is correct.

    Of the 16 Chief Justices, only about half were servicing on the Supreme Court prior to appointment, including Warren Burger. I sand corrected.

  2. Jack's Shack September 6, 2005 at 5:21 am

    Ok, there a number of good responses and questions here. I apologize for the “group response.”

    The first thing that I really should have done and should still do now is research the responsibilities of the CJ more carefully as I have a basic understanding.

    Soccer Dad is correct that not all of the Justices were judges, Earl Warren was governor of California.

    It may be that the job doesn’t require someone to have been on the bench for any length of time and that it is really something that a competent person could pick up on with little trouble.

    I guess that my initial thought was based upon the idea that the CJ has a fair amount of power and that a lack of experience as a supreme court justice might be detrimental.

  3. The Misanthrope September 6, 2005 at 4:21 am

    Let’s also review why Bush would do this so quickly since Rehnquest’s body is barely cold. They are desparately trying to change the news coverage.

  4. soccerdad September 6, 2005 at 2:05 am

    Actually, very few chief justices originally served as associate justices. I just read somewhere else that it was only three who have done so in the history of the court. I personally think it wouldn’t be a bad thing for Supreme Court justices to come from other walks of life … not all be judges.

  5. BarbaraFromCalifornia September 5, 2005 at 11:50 pm

    One would think that would be a logical order of business. Point of fact, Chief Justice Rehnquest was nominated by Nixon to serve, and elivated to CJ in the mid-80s, I believe.

    mashugahah is mild. How about er iz a nidderrechitiker kerl!

  6. orthomom September 5, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    This is actually a good political move. I’m not sure it matters, though. Bush’s ship is sinking, IMHO.

  7. fsgsf September 5, 2005 at 4:27 pm

    The office of Chief Justice does not require that you had served as an associate justice first! Actually Bush will leave a bigger mark on the direction of the court by appointing a chief justice to steer the court, than by appointing a few associate justices.

    NJ from NJ

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

You may also like