Caught a quick look at a Presidential annoncement this morning. It appears that Bush is going to nominate John Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Interesting development.
Interesting development.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Roberts to be Nominated as Chief Justice (? loosed)
- Thread starter FPrice
- Start date
You can loose the question mark. The announcement is right on the Whitehouse web site.
So now that he's taking Rehnquist's spot, who's taking O'Connors spot?
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,954
- Likes
- 20,943
SiameseRat said:
TBD!
All the Pres did was change Roberts "assignment" to top-dog.
He still has to nominate another candidate, but politically it would be smarter to wait until after Roberts is confirmed. The Libs will want to know who and now, but if Bush is smart he won't give in to them.
And what's Roberts' stance on gun control issues?
Did that get discussed yet?
Did that get discussed yet?
SiameseRat said:
Don't know if it's been discussed here. There aren't many writings of his that specifically address the issue, but this article by David Hardy sheds some light on what one might expect from Roberts.
As to whom Buch might now appoint to fill O'Connor's position, I suspect that the two front runners would be the two women who were considered by many to be the prime candidates for the original appointment, Edith Jones and Edith Clement. He was under a lot of pressure (incouding from his wife) to appoint another woman initially. I don't know much about either's RKBA positions; there's essentially been no discussion of either in terms of second amendment interpretation, most of the original discussion being directed towards abortion issues, obviously. Both ducked the chance to take a strong stand in US v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002), joining the majority in a narrowly focused decision, Jones is considered to be somewhat more "conservative" (for whatever that might be worth).
There's also been some recent rumors that Janet Rogers Brown might be under consideration. That would be absolutely great, but after the fight she put up with earlier, and with concerns that the administration might have about her being "too libertarian", most would consider it extremely unlikely.
Ken
Ugh, I didn't think there was such a thing as being "TOO Libertarian"
Their concerns, not mine by any stretch of the imagination. If you read some of her concurrence in Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal.4th 472, 2 P.3d 581, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 (2000), For example, "Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms -- a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions.... urely the right to preserve one's life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one's privacy." The facts that Larry Pratt seems to loves her and that Joe Bidden has already threatened a filibuster if she's appointed weigh strongly in her favor with me.
Ken
Ken