The Chief Justice Nomination
My online news source reports this morning that GW Bush has picked John Roberts to succeed the newly deceased William Rehnquist as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The report said that by doing so Bush avoids some political problems that might've added to the ones he already has.
Pardon me, but isn't this just another typical Bush end run, his thinking being to preserve an unbroken iron grip on the Court's agenda, otherwise the senior Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, a Liberal, would decide lots of things affecting the court's decisions until the new Chief Justice is installed?
Pardon me, but John Roberts is not yet a Justice and never has been one, right?
Pardon me, but isn't this just like bringing up a rookie from the baseball minor leagues and installing him as the team captain and maybe the cleanup batter too?
Pardon me, but whether or not Bush can do this legally, is this the moral and judicious thing to do? What about the other seven justices who've been there all along? (There would be eight but O'Connor has resigned, and she has promised to stay on only till she is replaced.)
Of course I don't care about two of them, the infamous Charley McCarthy team, Scalia and Thomas. They are so crusted over with nothingness that I would be surprised if even many thinking conservatives feel for them either. But that leaves five others who seem to have served long enough with distinction to be considered for the top spot. Of course four of them did not indulge in the obscene presumption a few years ago that the nine justices instead of the tens of millions of American voters had the right to choose the next President. In a just and fair world that would be enough to make them eminently suitable for the post. Instead, in the eyes of those who benefited from the year 2000 putsch, it makes those justices eminently unsuitable.
Pardon me, but won't this maneuver cause people to see Bush acting once more in an improper, highhanded, and dogmatic manner and thus bring about more political problems for him, instead of avoiding them? And won't those problems reach even into the Court itself? Human nature being what it is -- and I assume that holds true even in the rockbound Highest Court -- being passed over for the top spot is sure to cause some badly suppressed resentment and dissension.
Pardon me, but isn't this just another typical Bush end run, his thinking being to preserve an unbroken iron grip on the Court's agenda, otherwise the senior Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, a Liberal, would decide lots of things affecting the court's decisions until the new Chief Justice is installed?
Pardon me, but John Roberts is not yet a Justice and never has been one, right?
Pardon me, but isn't this just like bringing up a rookie from the baseball minor leagues and installing him as the team captain and maybe the cleanup batter too?
Pardon me, but whether or not Bush can do this legally, is this the moral and judicious thing to do? What about the other seven justices who've been there all along? (There would be eight but O'Connor has resigned, and she has promised to stay on only till she is replaced.)
Of course I don't care about two of them, the infamous Charley McCarthy team, Scalia and Thomas. They are so crusted over with nothingness that I would be surprised if even many thinking conservatives feel for them either. But that leaves five others who seem to have served long enough with distinction to be considered for the top spot. Of course four of them did not indulge in the obscene presumption a few years ago that the nine justices instead of the tens of millions of American voters had the right to choose the next President. In a just and fair world that would be enough to make them eminently suitable for the post. Instead, in the eyes of those who benefited from the year 2000 putsch, it makes those justices eminently unsuitable.
Pardon me, but won't this maneuver cause people to see Bush acting once more in an improper, highhanded, and dogmatic manner and thus bring about more political problems for him, instead of avoiding them? And won't those problems reach even into the Court itself? Human nature being what it is -- and I assume that holds true even in the rockbound Highest Court -- being passed over for the top spot is sure to cause some badly suppressed resentment and dissension.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 10:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home