CJ dies in office + Roberts nomination shifted to CJ

[Walt Starr]

= Extraordinary Cirumstances.

Sing it loud and long. We need ALL PAPERS before a vote can be taken.

[spooked911]

1. I can't frigging believe this.

It is insanity.

How can this guy possibly be qualified?

[MH1]

3. Since when did being qualified

have anything to do with a Bush nominee?

[AlGore-08.com]

4. Unfortunately there's a long history of CJs without legal experience

Of any kind. There's no minimum professional qualification for the job.

[Walt Starr]

5. B ut the circumstances are extraordinary

which puts the filibuster option back on the table.

[AlGore-08.com]

7. To play devil's advocate, I'm not sure the case can be made

that Roberts' inexperience disqualifies him to be CJ. Too many CJs have had less legal experience, and Roberts judicial rulings are not as blatantly wack-a-doo as his opinions as an administration lawyer. Because of this, it's fairly easy for the Smirk admin to claim that Roberts can rule based on law, not his personal opinions.

Additionally, the Dems decision to publicly announce that they would not filibuster to Roberts, that Roberts will almost certainly be confirmed, has weakened an already weak hand.

[Walt Starr]

9. Inexperience is not the issue, the written record is.

And because Roberts will now be the head of the third branch of government, there can absolutely be no vote whatsoever until the entire record from Roberts' time in the REagan White House has been produced to and reviewed by the Senate.

[AlGore-08.com]

18. Again, just playing devil's advocate, Roberts record is a problem

He has made rulings that contradict his private, political views, rulings based on the law. The GOP is going to argue that this proves Roberts can put his personal opinions aside and issue decisions based on the Constitution and what's good for the country. The Dems are going to have to prove that Roberts will behave differently as CJ than he did as a Judge. It's a hard case to make.

Additionally, since Smirk has kicked the Roberts nomination to CJ, and not nominated a Justice to replace O'Connor (or nominated somebody else to be CJ), it's easier for the GOP to claim that Roberts' politics will not change the balance on the court. O'Connor has said she will continue on the bench until her replacement is confirmed. The GOP can claim that Roberts will maintain the current balance, and that some unnamed moderate will be nominated to replace O'Connor.

IMNSHO, that is how the GOP will play this.

[Dudley_DUright]

10. Perhaps, but it also increases the importance of releasing

all of the relevant Roberts documents, including the ones BushCo is holding back from Roberts' time in Bush I solicitor generals office.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050729.html

[Renew Deal]

12. Would Scalia or Thomas be better?

I think that's the problem. Bush knows he would lose on those.

[spooked911]

16. True. There is also the legacy angle-- Roberts clerked for Rehnquist

[ramblin_dave]

2. Is Scalia pissed?

Just wondering.

[Renew Deal]

13. I would imagine so.

How could he not be?

[spooked911]

17. I'm sure he is. I wonder if this will affect his rulings?

Someone even posted somewhere that Scalia said he would resign if he wasn't appointed CJ

[Pirate Smile]

6. So a conservative is replacing a conservative now. Big deal. So can

he find a moderate/center-right person to take O'Connor's spot since that was the swing vote that is so important.

I wonder if he would go back to considering Gonzalez for her spot. The RW fundies would be pissed.

After what that monster has done, if he had a friggin brain in his head, he would appoint a moderate for her spot. But he doesn't have a brain, or it is warped and evil.

I can't believe we are supposed to live with these bastards as our Federal Government for the next almost 4 years.

How do you impeach an entire Administration, not just the Pres, VP, Cabinet officers, etc?

How do you start a recall vote for the Presidency? You can't (it isn't in the Constitution) but we need to - we can't take any more from these monsters.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. The only way to put the brakes on them is to take back the Congress in 06

eom

[mcscajun]

11. I can't believe it either...

...but we're now seeing what we feared all along since November 2004 -- an administration with no one to answer to, full control of all three branches of government, and no concern AT ALL for the people of this country.

We moaned, groaned, bitched, and fretted...because we KNEW things were going to be bad, THIS Bad. We just can't believe it's JUST as BAD as we KNEW it would be. For all our complaining, we prayed deep down inside that we were wrong. We Weren't.

It's God-Awful...AND...It's Not Over.

We have to impeach officials individually, and I'm not really sure we could have multiple impeachment trials concurrently; it's never been contemplated, to my knowledge. I'm not sure you can ever impeach people appointed, like Cabinet officials; you're right, we can't start a recall vote for the President. There's only two constitutional ways to remove a sitting President: one is impeachment, the other is revolution. The first is nearly impossible in the present political environment, and the second is highly unlikely, given the 'bread and circuses' social environment we currently live in.

[CarbonDate]

15. "From beneath you, it devours...."

Try them from the bottom up. Eliminate the successors that would be just as bad, then go after Bush.

Actually, all you have to do is go after Cheney and force him out. Then go after Bush before he can name a replacement to Cheney. President Pelosi. This is all assuming we have a Democratic Congress. Without that, we're all just going to keep taking it for the next three and a half years.

[SledDriver]

14. Revolution n/t

[NV Whino]

19. The big deal is, Robert is only in his 50s

That equals 30+ years with a conservative as head of the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas would only equal another 10 years or so. (I don't know their exact ages so only guessing on the time period, but you get the idea.)

[Pirate Smile]

20. The title isn't that important. He is just one vote on cases whether

it is as CJ or an Associate.