Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice

I don't know anything about Supreme Court policies or procedures, but it seems to me, putting the new guy in charge would be kind of insulting to the people who have been on the court for years, and understand how it works from direct experience.

Having said that, I can understand why Bush would do this. Obviously, the only other people he would be happy with as Chief Justice would be Thomas or Scalia, and either of those would probably face a pretty tough road getting confirmed to the position. And I don't think anyone wants to relive the Thomas confirmation hearings mess. I've heard all I can take in my life about pubic hairs in people's soft drinks.

Anyway, no matter what happens on the court, and no matter what rights we have to give up, at least we should be about at the end of hearing wingnuts whine about the liberal court. Which was ridiculous anyway, since all but two of the justices were appointed by Republicans. If they were unable to get their views into the minstream with that kind of imbalance on the court, maybe they should blame themselves for failing to appoint the right people, not the judges for being too liberal. Or, perhaps, just maybe the Constitution just doesn't line up much with their ideas, and the justices know what they're doing, regardless of who appointed them.

Posted by


STP said...

As an FYI, there is nothing unique on the Court with putting a new guy in charge. I can't say off the top of my head, but it has happened a number of times. And I agree, much better than Scalia or Thomas.

Robert Bayn said...

you know odd thing about the court it is more Conservative than libearl, but because there are a few libearl justices, right wing nut jobs, twist the facts, which they do so well, and make the average american think otherwise.

John Howard said...

Yeah, I wasn't sure, like I said I don't know, just seems strange.

John Howard said...

Yeah, but the right wing equates "not insanely religous" to "liberal".