Can You Say, 'Chief Justice Scalia'?

[kskiska]

It looks like the White House is considering only one sitting U.S. Supreme Court judge as a replacement for ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist , who's expected to step down this summer. Insiders tell us that Justice Antonin Scalia , not Justice Clarence Thomas , is the one President Bush is most likely to tap. The thinking: How could the Senate reject a judge they OK'd for the court 98 to 0?

Scroll down:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050606/6whisplead.htm

[Demeter]

1. Not Without Slitting My Throat First

Please, God, just say NO.

[CatholicEdHead]

2. Given that Thomas might be the fall back option for the GOP

I think the Democrats in the Senate will look on this as the "lesser of two evils".

[Doctor_J]

10. they might send Fat Tony up first,

knwoing he'll be kicked, then put in Slappy when the Dems have used up their "vetoes".

[Atman]

3. Because since they ok'd him, he's committed crimes against the U.S.

Can you say "in bed with Dick Cheney?"

That was then. This is now. Scalia is a crook.

[napi21]

4. Well, I prefer Scalia to Thomas!

I've listened to both speak on different programs on cspan. Scalia at least comes across as intelligent! Thomas, on the other hand, is a poor speaker, always seems to skirt the questions he's asked, and responds with either a non answer, or answers some other questions that wasn't asked.

I rarely agree with Scalia, but at least he's a capable justice!

[Zhade]

34. Capable?

This is the guy who said "you can kill innocent people as long as the trial proceeded smoothly" (paraphrasing, of course).

Thomas is an incompetent crook. Scalia is a competent one. He's far worse, IMHO.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. I really don't see what the big deal is if Scalia is CJ

He's already on the court. He isn't one more radical voice. Perhaps Senate Dems could play their cards such that they will approve of Scalia for Chief Justice in exchange for a more mainstream judge to replace him as an associate.

I'm more concerned about adding another radical voice. Since Scalia's already on the bench, his move from associate to chief justice doesn't really change anything apart from his status.

[bertha katzenengel]

6. "doesn't really change anything" -- my thoughts exactly.

Let Bush make his legacy be that he elevated the most radical jurist on the Court. Let CJ Scalia's dissents (for in the big cases, when the tyranny of the majority is knocked down time & time again, Scalia will be among the 4 votes, or 3, or 2 -- or) become increasingly bitter.

Let history use this as one more indicator that the American people lost their minds during this brief interlude.

[CatholicEdHead]

8. Well the current line of thinking over there is to go radical

and not centrist/moderate, as the inner-GOP line of reasoning is that Judges always "move left" after they get appointed. So they want to sart from a far radical right position to account for this "moving left".

This 45min Wisonsin Public Radio show talks about this. It was the same guy who wrote that editorial at the back of the most recent US News and World Report (Reagan edition).

http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/jca/jca050603b.rm

7:00 AM
Joy Cardin - 06/03B

Congressional members have compromised on the confirmation process for President Bush’s judicial nominees. After seven, Joy Cardin welcomes syndicated columnist John Leo, who says Bush shouldn’t respond by nominating centrist judges.

Guest: John Leo, columnist for U.S. News and World Report. “Picking the next Justice,” (Tuesday Wisconsin State Journal)

[K-W]

18. Well, of course it is, they will try to get a radical in, we have to stop

them. In the end hopefully we can get a law abiding moderate repub.

[Yupster]

23. What does the chief justice do?

Is it largely a ceremonial office, or does he have any more power than any other justice?

[bertha katzenengel]

27. It's a good question. I had to look it up:

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/resourcedoc.cfm?ResourceDocID=254

* sets the agenda of which cases will be heard

* writes the majority opinion if s/he's in the majority

* is the chief administrator of the U.S. Courts

more at link

[K-W]

17. Indeed, it is far more important who gets put on the court

than who gets chief justice.

[depakid]

30. The man has no ethics

That's A BIG DEAL. He shouldn't be sitting on the court in the first place- and would have been disiplined by pretty much any state bar or or judicial fitness committee for his contacts and all expense paid vacation with Cheney while important cases were pending.

That alone disualifies him from being considered for Chief Justice- at least in any half-sane world...

[liberalpragmatist]

36. My point is he's already on the court

I'd rather pick a battle over a NEW justice - someone who might actually change the ratios in various cases. Scalia's already on the court - his changing from Associate to Chief Justice doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things.

[depakid]

38. They're going to have to pick a new justice anyway

Picking one for Chief Justice will be even harder and would serve to emphasize the appointment in the public and press's minds.

Plus, blocking Scalia- WHO DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE SITTING- MUCH LESS TO GET A PROMOTION provides in opportunity to highlight his maleasance and bring his extremest views and put his intemperate public statements into play on national TV.

Letting Scalia become Chief Justice would just be more of the same (and be viewed as more of the same) cowardly actions and inactions that have caused the Dems to lose election after election over the past 11 years.

But then again- you're probably right as to what the Dems will do- they seem almost pathologically inclined toward self-destruction....

[NewJeffCT]

I always wonder if Bork would have been worse?

If my memory serves, and it was 20 years ago or so, didn't we get the younger Scalia instead of Robert Bork when Bork was voted down? Would Bork have been that much worse?

[NewJeffCT]

7. I always wonder if Bork would have been worse?

If my memory serves, and it was 20 years ago or so, didn't we get the younger Scalia instead of Robert Bork when Bork was voted down? Would Bork have been that much worse?

[tx_dem41]

9. Do I have to? n/t

[OneBlueSky]

11. he'll still only have one vote . . .

what's more worrisome is what will happen when some of the moderate or "swing" justices retire . . . that's when the balance can be shifted for the next several decades . . .

[Doctor_J]

12. Here, I'll try

Chief...
Justice...
Sc...
Sca...
:puke:

Nope

[Zorra]

13. "Ch, chie, chi jus, aaargh....

:puke:nope, can't say it.

[Doctor_J]

14. What I'd like to see happen

is for our people to make it known that Fat Tony and Slappy are too corrupt and partisan to be considered, but that they would be happy to confirm any of the other GOP appointees on the SC - Kennedy, Stevens, O'Connor, or Souter, and let * get tongue-tied trying to get out of that.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tux]

16. ANd

Pro-theocracy. Just like all Christians. I say get an atheist or a Buddhist, or pagan, or anyone to be SC Cheif. They'll destroy this nation so they can blame non-Christians and kill us all.

[struggle4progress]

19. Can you say Quack Quack? eom

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Thomas wouldn't know what to do unless Scalia was

telling him anyway. Why not cut to the chase?

Either is a horrible choice, but since Scalia at least fakes sounding intelligent, he's more likely to get through. I think even the senate knows they allowed a moron on the court with Thomas.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Not if you can say "That would be an extraordinary turn of events"

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats will probably never be able to say that because not one of them ever challenged Bush's right to hold office based on the the Supreme Court's legitimizing of election fraud in Florida.

[leesa]

22. He's already won the job when he went duck hunting with Cheney

Keeping the public energy papers sealed was his ticket to the head supreme job.

[Nancy Waterman]

24. Isn't Rehnquist already pretty far right

Is there much difference?

[Jack Rabbit]

26. Rehnquist is far right, but more practical in his interpretation of law

Scalia is an "originalist", that is, he doesn't believe the constitution is a living document whose meaning is to be re-interpreted to fit the times. Instead, an originalist asks what the founding fathers meant in the context of their time and interpret the law accordingly.

Apparently, originalists think the Constitution needs to be amended every time there is any shift in society. How would the founding fathers have dealt with the Internet? We don't know, so we'll just make it up as we go along.

It's a silly approach to law.

[Nancy Waterman]

37. Thanks for the explanation

xx

[dchill]

29. OK, maybe, but...

It sure didn't hurt his chances when Bush was swept into office with Scalia's broom.

[leesa]

31. Two 'good turns' warrent a Supremeship!

[dissent1977]

25. Hey just look at the reforms Scalia will bring to the court

There would be orgies among the Supreme Court Justices before making any decisions. After all Scalia believes they eliminate social tensions, and wouldn't it be so much easier to come to a consensus if those tensions were gone.

[wallwriter]

28. Chief Justice Scumba....Chief Justice Assho....

No. I guess I can't.

[Ravenseye]

32. Chief Justice Sebulba

poodoo

[ajreinha]

33. Scalia, C.J., dissenting

I agree with many that it wouldn't be such a big deal. He could assign himself the opinion whenever he would be in the majority, but at worst, that would just mean more Scalia opinions, which are always fun to read. One thing that I think would be good about a Chief Justice Scalia is that he has complained in the past (in his early days on the Court) that there is really no debate between the Justices at conference, that they only take votes and move on. So it would be neat if as Chief he would encourage more active debate between the Justices at conference.

Also, keep in mind that the reason Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in the first place was because Democrats had made a strategic decision to focus their fire on Rehnquist, who was being nominated to Chief (from Associate) rather than on Scalia (who was being nominated to the post vacated by Rehnquist). Democrats should not make the same mistake again and let an extreme conservative float by under the radar because they oppose the elevation of a Justice to Chief who will not have significantly more power or influence.

Someone also said that Scalia was nominated instead of Bork (which is wrong). After Bork was Borked, Justice Kennedy was nominated instead. If we had Justice Bork instead of Justice Kennedy, states could criminalize sodomy and execute juveniles. This is how important these fights over S.Ct. nominations can be. Fifteen years from now, whoever Bush nominates could be the important swing vote on a number of important cases.

[lala_rawraw]

35. I can say a few other things with that name attached...

But you don't want to really see that in font.