The Chief Justice has passed away...

**Pete Hanlin** · 09-03-2005, 10:32 PM

With the passing of Justice Rehnquist, an era has ended (without doubt, to the relief of some).

This should provide some interesting fireworks for the confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts- however, upon reflection it would seem the court is almost certain to be LESS conservative in the future. After all, it would be hard to find a justice more conservative than the Chief Justice has proven to be.

My guess is President Bush will nominate Justice Scalia to replace the Chief Justice, and congressional democrats will allow Roberts a pass while they hunker down for a fight over the next nominee (and the nomination for Chief Justice).

marquess · 09-03-2005, 11:17 PM

THIMC, some, but not all of the same views

**Blake** · 09-04-2005, 05:27 PM

Whoa! Do you really think the Dems will just stand by and watch Scalia be made chief justice? The response will more likely be "over my dead body," except by dead they'll mean "in a Ted Kennedy type stupor."

It's gonna get interesting, that's for sure!

**coda** · 09-06-2005, 01:53 PM

Guess it doesn't matter how the Dems would have felt about Scalia. In any event I think Scalia would have been a poor choice and Roberts a good one. Roberts seems to have shown the ability to work with people with divergent beliefs and garner their respect if not their agreement, somewhat like Renquist who I understand was fairly well liked by his collegues one both sides of the legal political spectrum. I believe few would say this of Scalia.

**Pete Hanlin** · 09-06-2005, 11:16 PM

I guess the President agrees- he has tapped Roberts to be the Chief Justice. Perhaps some historian among us can tell us if any new nominee to the SC has been nominated to be Chief Justice... From the President's side, I suppose naming Roberts as the CJ ensures he will have made his mark on the court for a long time. Also, having served for CJ Rehnquist, perhaps he feels Roberts will continue to shepherd the court in the same direction.

I predict we'll hear a LOT from Sen. Kennedy on this one (well, even more than we were hearing before- if that is possible). Naming Roberts to be CJ might be construed as rather ballsy (can we use that term here?)- except I don't think the President was going to get any of the other conservative justices approved as CJ (even I would have been opposed to a Chief Justice Thomas nomination- he is definitely not the brightest bulb on the court).

Judge Roberts seems to have been gifted with at least a bit of diplomacy- from what I've seen. The complete lack of that gift is what really tanked Bork's nomination, so perhaps he will get through the confirmation process. My suspicion is that the President will have a much MUCH tougher time getting through his next nomination.

**Cindy Hamlin** · 09-07-2005, 12:45 AM

This was an interesting article about the court and the Chief Justice:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._of_the_court/

And as presidents have found out, they don't always get what they want in a chief; Eisenhower would call his appointment of Warren the ''the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."

**coda** · 09-07-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

Perhaps some historian among us can tell us if any new nominee to the SC has been nominated to be Chief Justice...

Actually it's much more common to move directly into the CJ position rather than to be elevated from an Associate Justice position.

There have been 16 CJs, of them only three (Renquist, Stone and White) were directly elevetated from the position of AJ. Huges was an AJ but left the court to run for the office of president agains Wilson, some years later he was appointed to the position of CJ. Delving further back into the past Rutledge also served as an AJ then left the court (to be the CJ of the South Carolina Supreme Court), he was then appointed CJ by Washington in a recess appointment which was later rejected by the Senate.

So 11 of the 16 had never served on the SC before (including John Jay the 1st CJ); 3 were directly elevated from the position of AJ; 2 had previously served as AJ but not directly priort to being appointed to the position of CJ.

And now you know.

**Jana Lewis** · 09-07-2005, 02:03 PM

Wonder if had the privledge of an autopsy.

**Blake** · 09-07-2005, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

...

I predict we'll hear a LOT from Sen. Kennedy on this one (well, even more than we were hearing before- if that is possible). Naming Roberts to be CJ might be construed as rather ballsy (can we use that term here?)- except I don't think the President was going to get any of the other conservative justices approved as CJ (even I would have been opposed to a Chief Justice Thomas nomination- he is definitely not the brightest bulb on the court).

Pete,
Careful with the references to Sen. K - apparently it's not polite to mention his honor in political discussions. :D

**Spexvet** · 09-07-2005, 06:50 PM

Do you guys really think Kennedy is a factor? I don't think he's any more influencial than Jesse Helm or Strom Thurman were.

**coda** · 09-07-2005, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Spexvet

Do you guys really think Kennedy is a factor? I don't think he's any more influencial than Jesse Helm or Strom Thurman were.

I have to agree with this. Just because he's constantly talking doesn't mean anyone is really listening. Well, excepting people on the other side of the asile who want something to b***h about. I don't believe Strom was terribly effective at swaying the views of fellow Republicans and I feel the same way about Kennedy. Certainly neither was (and Kennedy continues not to be) effective at swaying the undecided public or folks on the far side of the fence.

**Pete Hanlin** · 09-07-2005, 07:20 PM

Good point... I guess the squeaky wheel just gets the grease (or in this case, a double-martini ;^). I was never a particular fan of Sen. Helms or Thurmond, either. My favorite senators of all time were Sens. Allan Simpson and Patrick Moynihan (and my favorite House members were Barbara Jordan and Newt Gingrich).

Also, thanks for the history lesson on SC CJs! You learn something new each day!

**coda** · 09-08-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

Also, thanks for the history lesson on SC CJs! You learn something new each day!

My pleasure.

With quickie replies like that, i.e. when I don't have the chance to research primary sources, I almost always rely on en.wikipedia.org. This is a great, wide ranging, free resource; check it out!

**Spexvet** · 09-08-2005, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

My favorite senators of all time were Sens. Allan Simpson and Patrick Moynihan (and my favorite House members were Barbara Jordan and Newt Gingrich).

How can you like Gingrich AND Moynihan? They are about as polar opposite as you can get.

**chm2023** · 09-08-2005, 12:49 PM

[QUOTE=Spexvet]How can you like Gingrich AND Moynihan? They are about as polar opposite as you can get.[/QUOT

Once upon a time, it was possible to admire folks of a different political stripe. I always liked Goldwater, though he and I thought differently on many things. (Goldwater would be considered a moderate Republican today. He was brutally critical of the neo-cons). I know a lot of Republican who deeply admired Bobby Kennedy. Today it's all black/white, all knee jerk. Uses less brain cells I guess.

**Pete Hanlin** · 09-09-2005, 08:31 PM

How can you like Gingrich AND Moynihan? They are about as polar opposite as you can get.

Being a bit odd, I actually enjoy watching C-SPAN occasionally...

I think it is yet possible to admire politicians from both stripes. Once you get past the party-line face they are required to put on, most of them are pretty decent, intelligent individuals.

Sen. Moynihan always carried himself with dignity, and expressed well-thought out arguments (even when those arguments were for opinions opposite to my own).

Barbara Jordan was simply the most compelling member of Congress I've ever watched. I saw her give a speech to the Democratic Convention one time... well, it was simply amazing!

Sen. Simpson (from Utah, I believe) was the most refreshing Senator ever. I'd actually tape hearings just so I could watch his part (yeah, I'm a politic-geek as well as an opti-geek). You could always tell he didn't take himself too seriously- which is refreshing in a senator.

Speaker Gingrich was a masterful planner- his Contract with America (yeah, you can hate it, call it what you will, etc.) basically took the House back for the Republican party (that, and Clinton really fouled up the first half of his first term before learning how to tri-angulate). Unfortunately, the Speaker had the charisma and tolerance of a bullfrog (and he's basically a real jerk in his personal life). Still, brilliant fellow...

Sen. Feinstein can be one of the most agreeable truly liberal politicians I've seen. I usually enjoy watching her speak.

Sen. Lieberman may be the brightest and best Senator who will never be President of the United States. I'm convinced a Lieberman/Gore ticket would have won the electoral college in 2000.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if a politician is left or right wing, really... Some politicians just have "it," and some don't.

For example, Pat Buchannan (thankfully, never a Senator- or anything else other than a blowhard) didn't have it. Sen. Gephardt doesn't, I never thought Sen. Kerry did, Sen. Boxer has something- hopefully its not contagious!