blzrul Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 So a guy has two years on the bench and isn't even confirmed for the Supreme Court yet, but he's qualified to be Chief Justice? I suppose that anyone who questions this will be called a sympathizer of hurricanes...we must all pull together at this time of trial... Give me a fewking break. Oh well, I suppose Roberts is just as qualified as the rest of the inept morons in the current administration. And most importantly, it seems, he has GREAT hair. What a stupid country this is. I would almost believe that Katrina WAS sent by God to smite us, except the people who got smitten are the ones who least deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 you've got it all wrong. Katrina was sent by Allah. Plus, bush gets to nominate a moderate to replace moderate SDO'C with conservative roberts replacing conservative WR. Now, i must focus my efforts on saving the infadel refugee welfare state by making my monetary pledge to deon sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 And most importantly, it seems, he has GREAT hair. 429647[/snapback] Don't you already know that 90 percent of everything is just showing up with your shoes tied and having great hair? I agree that it does seem to be a little backhanded to have a CJ who is relatively new to the scene rather than a justice who has served on the court for a while. If SDO had stayed on, I think she might have been nominated, but I'm not complaining that Scalia or Thomas weren't or were much less of an option b/c of their divisiveness. I would take Roberts over them; he seems to be more composed and similar in his nature and personality to WR. But with the new spot to be filled, look for a more hardcore "conservative" nomination since Pres. Bush already picked his "moderate." He's shown in many of his decisions and nominations that he's not afraid to engage and (unwittingly?) fuel the partisan fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 As some of you know, I am one of the most left-leaning voices here at PPP and I am a lawyer. Yet I support Roberts as Cheif Justice. First, it is traditional to appoint a newly appointed justice to cheif Justice. So appointing Roberts is not unusual. This is beacuse the Cheif Justice plays the role of facilitator. The idea is that justices who have been on the Court for many years have entrenched themselves into "camps" and would be less likely to broker compromises and cooperation (i.e. Scalia). Also, Robert's legal skill is undisputed. I have confidence in his legal ability. The way I see it Bush is going to appoint judges who lean way to the right. Roberts is about as rational as we are going to get. I am sure we will get a Scalia clone with the next appointment (if Bush has not lost too much political capital after Iraq and the New Orleans Debacle). So, all in all Roberts is about as good as we will get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 As some of you know, I am one of the most left-leaning voices here at PPP and I am a lawyer. Yet I support Roberts as Cheif Justice. First, it is traditional to appoint a newly appointed justice to cheif Justice. So appointing Roberts is not unusual. This is beacuse the Cheif Justice plays the role of facilitator. The idea is that justices who have been on the Court for many years have entrenched themselves into "camps" and would be less likely to broker compromises and cooperation (i.e. Scalia). 429776[/snapback] Stop disrupting nozzlenut's attempt to make everything political and act like a 12 year old while attacking the President. There was a lot of insight in that "great hair" blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Slipping into John "Captain Obvious" Madden mode: The other thing this does is it keeps SDOC on until another replacement can be found....Not to say Roberts in inappropriate for Chief (I think, from what I know, that he's a good pick), but it conveniently lets the "opening" disappear until it can be given appropriate attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 He's just doing this so he can stop the only black member from being Chief Justice BushBad! But seriously, I think Thomas or Kennedy would be better choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 What a stupid country this is. 429647[/snapback] thank you for reminding me why i don't bother to read your nonsesne threads. you jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 So a guy has two years on the bench and isn't even confirmed for the Supreme Court yet, but he's qualified to be Chief Justice? I agree. I'd rather have Thomas or Scalia. I would almost believe that Katrina WAS sent by God to smite us, except the people who got smitten are the ones who least deserve it. 429647[/snapback] Yeah, those poor people who took the opportunity to loot, rob, rape and murder the first chance they got are certainly the least deserving of any bad fortune! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Yeah, those poor people who took the opportunity to loot, rob, rape and murder the first chance they got are certainly the least deserving of any bad fortune! 429940[/snapback] To be fair, the people doing all the looting and raping had to survive the hurricane in order to have that opportunity and most will probably get away with it. The bad fortune went the way of all the old folks, disabled people, and little kids who drowned. Of course, reading her post, you get the sense she could name a few people she believes DO deserve to die in a horrible flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 He's just doing this so he can stop the only black member from being Chief Justice BushBad! But seriously, I think Thomas or Kennedy would be better choices 429924[/snapback] For CJ?!? No way. I am with slothrop and Bush on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Roberts is stupid. Let's throw rocks at him. BTW, I'm a genius. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Can there really be 1001 ways to say BUSH BAD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 First, it is traditional to appoint a newly appointed justice to cheif Justice. So appointing Roberts is not unusual. This is beacuse the Cheif Justice plays the role of facilitator. The idea is that justices who have been on the Court for many years have entrenched themselves into "camps" and would be less likely to broker compromises and cooperation (i.e. Scalia). 429776[/snapback] Do you have anything (a link would be great) that explains this? Not that I don't believe you. I do, and I've been trying to convince a few people of this all day. A source to quote would help, but I don't think citing "slothrop on the internet" is going to help my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Do you have anything (a link would be great) that explains this? Not that I don't believe you. I do, and I've been trying to convince a few people of this all day. A source to quote would help, but I don't think citing "slothrop on the internet" is going to help my case. 430244[/snapback] I believe anything I read on the intarweb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I believe anything I read on the intarweb. 430245[/snapback] Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Whatever. 430248[/snapback] Okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Okay? 430253[/snapback] Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Huh? 430257[/snapback] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Do you have anything (a link would be great) that explains this? Not that I don't believe you. I do, and I've been trying to convince a few people of this all day. A source to quote would help, but I don't think citing "slothrop on the internet" is going to help my case. I understand the line of reasoning, but I would probably characterize it as common rather than traditional. One of the original associate justices was actually nominated for CJ, but was never confirmed. To support the theory, there have been only three sitting associate justices elevated to CJ: Edward White (1910-1921), Harlan Stone (1941-1946), and William Rehnquist (1986-2005). Charles Hughes served as an associate, resigned, and was later nominated as CJ (1930-1941). So three out of sixteen. Four if you count Charles Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts