|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062 |
Quote:
the G-man said: Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice
Moving swiftly, President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice of the Supreme Court.
The president made the announcement in the Oval Office before leaving for another trip to the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast.
Roberts, who once clerked for Rehnquist, said he would be honored "to succeed a man I deeply respect and admire."
"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office.
Bush called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Congress has already been weighing whether to delay Roberts' confirmation hearings because of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Bush already had nominated Roberts to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. It would just take a little paper shuffling to change the nomination for Rehnquist's seat. Bush still must fill O'Connor's seat but she has promised to stay on the court until a successor is named.
Seems like a smart move to me. Roberts has already been investigated by everyone so you don't have to start from scratch. Furthermore, since O'Connor has said she'll stay on until her replacement is confirmed, so you don't have a vacancy when the new court session begins in October (assuming the Democratic leadership doesn't change their mind and decide to be obstructionist with Roberts now). You can then fill O'Connor's seat at a more leisurely pace and not distract from the hurricane, etc.
What's the difference between Chief Justice and the other justices? Why does Roberts have to become "Chief" Justice, as opposed to just replacing Rehnquist's seat and one of the other experienced members of the Court being promoted to Chief? I know shit about the Supreme Court, so please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|