I have two simple questions that probably require complex answers. The first is: why was John Roberts selected for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after Reihnquist died? Shouldn't someone else already on the court be promoted instead? How can you go from nothing to Chief?
Secondly, Bush's nomination for Sandra Day O'Connor's spot is a woman that wasn't even a judge. Apparently, that isn't a requirement, but is it wise? Is it common? I can't imagine going straight from attorney to Supreme Court Justice, with nothing in between. If anyone could shed some light on these questions, it would be much appreciated.
Both of these situations have happened commonly in the past. We as a country go through phases where we have politicians on the court, for example. William Taft became Chief Justice after he was President.
So neither of these is unusual on the surface. The big issues are of course political, and that's normal for these times.
Do a search on "Supreme Court Justice" at www.findlaw.com, or check www.historynet.com, for more information.
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)
Neither can I imagine it. It would be highly unorthodox in Commonwealth countries at least. Seems to be perculiar to the USA's constitutional conventions.
Partially because of the untrammelled power the Supreme Court theoretically holds (1/3) which seems to require political involvement of some form. Partially because of a chain of historical precedents that seems to issue from the early 19th Century.
What this means in terms of independance of the judiciary in the 21st Century is matter of some personal dismay.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Churchill
It seems we swing from the SC as an arm of political action, to the SC as simply the end of the judicial appeals chain, cautious in it's interpretations. Obviously, Bush would rather see the former, to recreate the success that Presidents like FDR enjoyed in tying legal precedent to political goals.
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)
Any 'promotion' of an Associate Justice to Chief Justice would require that the Justice in question be re-confirmed. Not very desirable with two openings and at least two nominations before the Court can be reconstituted. Also, the Chief Justice's duties are mostly superficial.
Rules cannot trump power -- The Godfather Doctrine
Blog
But he does get the spiffy hat.
3DS Friend Code: 2509-2418-9951
Let me know if you add me and I'll add you back!
Huh. I didn't know that. You mean they can *throw out* a justice, just for promotion?
I've read some essays recently by people like Felix Frankfurter, and they seem to think the position is very important in bringing together the court on the cases they work. I don't think it's superficial at all.
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)
Oliver Wendell Holmes is an example of this process (and Rehnquist, IIRC). I don't think there is a precedent for a Justice being but up for promotion yet failing to be confirmed. It would be an interesting Constitutional dilemna (or crisis) if a Justice failed re-confirmation. It could point out a glaring loophole and possibly give the President a powerful trump card. (A Scalia or Ginsburg nomination might set the stage for this battle.) My guess is that a Justice would still retain their original Associate position. But we've never had to confront that. Perhaps better Google-Fu might shed more light.
Possibly. I mean that it's more of a First among Equals type position with little if any power beyond that of any other Justice. Most notably, the Chief Justice has the privilege of writing the opinion for his faction in any case. We remember Chiefs such as Holmes or Warren as opposed to other Chiefs that are frequently in the minority, such as Rehnquist. Minority opinions tend to be forgotten as quickly as silver medalists.
Rules cannot trump power -- The Godfather Doctrine
Blog
Well, I see it a bit differently.
So I'd argue it's a lot more than just a formal nicety, and that the Chief Justice is literally the leader of the court. He's also the only Justice who is empowered to talk to Congress and the Executive on matters other than direct budgetary issues, so that is a lot of influence right there.
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/0...
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)
I stand corrected.
It will be interesting if there are any notable differences in how Roberts chooses to exercise these duties.
Rules cannot trump power -- The Godfather Doctrine
Blog
I'm betting that his interest in the position is that of a career SC lawyer - process, rather than ideology at the forefront.
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)