Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

i am appalled. i agree, the only reason i can see for naming Roberts to the Chief Justice position is ideological. O’Conner was to retire and Stevens take the helm. i am speechless.

it is traditional to nominate someone outside the supreme court to chief justice. the theory is that if you nominate associate justices that will fuel compition among associate justices to be promoted to chief justice.

however i do not believe roberts was a wise choice for cheif justice given his contraversial record. bush should have nominated a “uniter not a divider” to chief justice.

With Roberts as Chief Justice, and another Bush nominee on his heels, this next session is going to be a tumultuous year for the American people. On the docket are two abortion cases bringing individual rights to the fore, and Oregon’s assisted suicide provision bringing state’s rights front and center again.

I think it will be an historic season for the court marking the curtailment of more individual rights of choice as well as state’s rights on some issues like that of Oregon’s assisted suicide.

Given that Robert’s experience with the Supreme Court is as a lawyer arguing cases before it, and that he has no experience with the inner-workings of the Supreme Court, it appears once again, that President Bush doesn’t think much of experience, preferring agenda and ideology to experience at nearly every turn of his appointees and nominees, with some exceptions.

David, I’m in full agreement. Roberts - brand new on the court - nominated for Chief Justice? You have to be kidding me!

Roberts will be the Chief Justice. Democrats won’t block it. The guy just isn’t evil enough.

When President Bush nominates Judge Roy Moore to replace O’Connor, then we’ll whip out the filibuster.

Judge Roy Moore? While the necessity and value of the filibuster is questionable, I’d support it if that were to ever occur.
It’s disturbing that anyone who doesn’t understand and appreciate the wisdom of the 1st Amendment, and even defies it, could achieve such high offices in government.
Fortunately, Alabama saw fit to fire such a religious fanatic with a clear contempt for the 1st Amendment.
Regarding John Roberts, what about the strange denial or lack of memory of ever being a member of the Federalist Society ? There’s something really strange about that. But, then, perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of “member” was ?

AP,

So, Democrats are hoping the filibuster option may be avoided? What faith!

And if Democrats anticipate having to exercise the filibuster, would it not be more beneficial to their cause to delay Roberts and allow Liberal Justice Stevens to preside over the new session for as long as possible?

Just trying to perceive what Democratic strategy is likely to be in response to these events. Are they really willing to lose the filibuster to the nuclear option?

Who cares? I really don’t see the significance of this. Roe vs. Wade? Corporate Power? Police State?

Sheesh…

The Chief Justice’s most significant power is assigning who writes opinions, but he has no more power than any other justices in deciding the outcome of those cases or which cases get heard. So I hardly see what benefit Democrats would gain by trying to give Stevens a few months in the position.

And from what I’ve heard, the Chief Justice traditionally asks who wants to write the majority and minority opionins before assigning them anyway, unless he wants to write an opinion himself. The Supreme Court is a small group of people who all know each other, so they’re always communicating. The justices who are highly passionate about certain issues either get to write those opinions themselves or defer to a like-minded justice from their own side and then take their own turn later on.

Since Stevens would be unlikely to be voting with Scalia or Thomas anyway, it’s not as though he could somehow co-opt and sabotage the conservative side of the court (any more than Roberts would be able to co-opt the liberal side).

Over a long period of time, the Chief Justice matters. But over a few months? Hardly.

1. Have there been Chief Justices nominated in the past, who had no prior experience?

2. Instead of 2 fights over nominations, we would have 3, if the president chose someone from the SC to be chief Justice. Would it be wise to have 3 nominations at a time when liberals are so angry & confused?

3. I see another conspiracy theory brewing, when you speak of Stevens.

In conclusion, I thank God we have a conservative president to fill these 2 positions.

Perplexed

Perplexed, it’s sadly typical that the left would try to find something shocking and untoward in nominating an outsider. After all, just because that’s the way it has almost always worked in the past doesn’t mean that Bush should be allowed to get away with it. I mean, this is the guy who creates hurricanes to kill black people. You can’t give him an inch.

Agreement with AP. It makes no sense to delay a nomination simply to let Stevens temporarily preside. That just wouldn’t last long enough to matter. Dems will make the obligatory noise to keep their base placated, but while the noise will be technically proficient, it will lack passion. Roberts will sail through.

In purely political terms, the new opening gives Bush yet another lucky break. The hurricane could have been that break, and provided relief from the relentlessly bad news from Iraq & the Plame scandal, but the administration blew the hurricane relief effort in spectacular fashion; really, in purely political terms, a jackasstrophe.

The newest court opening gives Bush a chance to divert the headlines, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a fairly extreme nominee come up. Why not? His base needs placating, too. A heated, divisive debate would distract the public from the administration’s accruing monument of failures.

Why not a divisive debate? Repealing the estate tax won’t exactly capture the public’s heart, will it? A REALLY divisive debate about another truly extreme nominee makes Roberts look good. Just a guess- but the administration will throw this bombshell sooner, rather than later.

Sanger, I don’t quite know how to take what you said. Please clarify.

phx8:

The headlines are not written by the president. They are written by the news media. The media, as a whole is biased against the president, so if they want to stay on one subject, all they have to do is keep printing about that topic. The problem is, they keep jumping from one topic to another on a weekly basis in the hope of finding something that will stick.

Perplexed

Perp,
Here’s a useful exercise. Rather than take anyone’s word for it, you can see for yourself exactly who controls the media, and the nature of its bias.

Take a news magazine or watch a news telecast. Sort the items into liberal, moderate, and conservative categories. How does it break down?

Don’t forget the advertising. Ah… You see? Because as this exercise reveals, the truth is most of your news is not so much liberal, moderate, or conservative, as it is devoted towards selling you goods and services. That, Perp, is the real news.

Next, consider the source of your ‘news.’ Most newspapers, magazines, & television shows do not have their own hard hitting, investigative reporters on the scene. They rely upon a few representatives, usually from the largest organizations, such as Reuters & AP.

And where do these people get their information?

From government.

It’s one of the greatest powers of the Executive Branch of the federal government. More than any other governmental entity, the president can set the agenda, and influence tomorrow’s headlines.

The confirmation of Roberts, and more importantly, the next SCOTUS nominee, offer the Bush administration an opportunity to control the headlines. Bush desperately needs to exert this control in order to distract the public.

The last thing Bush supporters want is for the public to notice the repeal of the estate tax, which is a very large tax cut for a very, very small, yet extremely wealthy portion of tax-payers. Juxtaposing this tax cut with the suffering in New Orleans… well… it just won’t look good, will it?

Answer the question, please.

So, distract the public, and nominate someone extreme to the SCOTUS.

Again, it just won’t look good, repealing the estate tax, will it? Media pictures comparing poor people dying of heat, or thirst, or drowing in their attics, it just won’t look good when shown next to the wealthiest families in society receiving the estate tax cut, will it?

Hey, Perp- Make you a bet. I’ll bet not one person who died in New Orleans would have been eligible for the estate tax cut about to be passed by Congress. NOT ONE.

phx8:

So let me get this straight, there is no liberal news media, there is only Reuters, Ap, & a few others. They get their news straight from the government (I’m assuming you mean the presidents administration) & that news blasts the administration. So what you are saying is that the president gives the news media the ammunition they need to attack him. OK, that sounds logical.

I think I understand what you are saying about distracting the american public. Kind of like what Clinton did to the aspirin factory. Ok, thats sounds logical too.

I don’t bet, but I would guess that most (not all) who died in NO made a conscience decision to ignore the mandatory evacuation & decided to stay.

Perplexed

Perp,
“…The truth is most of your news is not so much liberal, moderate, or conservative, as it is devoted towards selling you goods and services.”

If you’d like, I can cut & paste the same three or four times. The bias of any particular media outlet is primarily commericial. Let me know when you “get it straight.”

“They get their news straight from the government.”

“Government.” Not necessarily the Executive Branch of the federal government, although that often applies in the case of Iraq, or a SCOTUS nomination. For example, the governor of Louisiana, the mayor of NO, Chertoff of Homeland Security, Brown of FEMA, all these are primary sources of media info right now.

But a picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of NO, the terrible pictures are absolutely killing the Bush administration. No amount of spin can change those terrible pictures.

Time to distract what Republican base remains with a controversial nomination. At worst, the Dems & moderate Republicans reject the nominee. No loss, if it keeps people from looking at pictures of NO, crowding it out of the headlines. No loss, if it keeps people like yourself from thinking about the repeal of the estate tax.

“…But I would guess that most (not all) who died in NO made a conscience decision to ignore the mandatory evacuation & decided to stay.”

True for some, no doubt. I was in New Orleans last week. On Saturday night, we planned on staying through the storm, and having a hurricane party. But on Sunday morning, it was a Cat 5 & definitely heading straight for the city. My wife & I left just before the mandatory evacuation was announced Sunday morning. If we hadn’t had access to a car I truly don’t know what we would have done…

Voice of Reason
bush should have nominated a “uniter not a divider” to chief justice.

By that I reckon you mean a Liberial.

no ron brown, just someone that doesn’t dismiss and discredit liberals.

we’d like to be included since we are the other half of the country.

i know the republicans are the majority, but that doesn’t mean that the minority is meaningless.

i know, i know…you think it is.

Perplexed,

To answer your first question, Charles Evans Hughes, William Howard Taft and Earl Warren immediately leap to mind as Chief Justices who had no judicial experience prior to nomination. All three, however, were accomplished politicians. Notwithstanding Roberts lack of political experience, it’s hard to categorize him as some kind of anomoly.

Otherwise, it’s obvious that he’s Bush’s first choice. Bush presumed that Rehnquist’s position would be the first vacancy, and Roberts is the guy he wants to replace him.

But Rehnquist was not the “swing vote”. O’Connor was. Even if Roberts is a Goldwater ideologue like Rehnquist was, which is certainly questionable, the cruical nominee is his next appointment.

Unless there’s a smoking gun someplace (such as the “pubic hair in my Coke”) or he makes a fool of himself at the hearings (like Robert Bork), his confirmation is a certainty.

views, Democrats are the other quarter of the country, not half. Half of the country’s eleigible to vote population doesn’t show up to vote as either Dem. or Rep., leaving only a quarter of them Democrats, and the other quarter Republicans. We have rule of the minority in America, and it has been a reality for a very long time now.

“We have rule of the minority in America, and it has been a reality for a very long time now.”

Most sensible thing I’ve read on here in a long time.
Well said David.

I know very little about politics but I give roberts credit. He seems to know where he stands on the issues he can a cannot speak on. He knows what lies in his future and I believe he will be able to face them full on!!!!

bush is on some b.s. i think that if he would actually use his brain then we would have someone who is fit for the job instead of someone who thinks like him

I do not like Bushes dicision at all, and even though I’m a 12 year old kid, I have my own opinion. And isn’t it a tradition to promote the Justices and replace their places with new members?