September 5, 2005

HAIL, TO THE CHIEF!:

Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice (Fred Barbash, September 5, 2005, Washington Post)

President Bush announced this morning that he will nominate John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.

The move, which was surprising primarily in its speed, avoids a prolonged public vetting of an entirely new nominee for the Chief Justice's job. While liberal organizations have stated their opposition to Roberts' appointment as an associate justice, there was little doubt that he was going to be confirmed for that position, barring any startling revelations.

It was not immediately clear whether the Senate Judiciary Committee would go ahead with confirmation hearings scheduled for this week, simply changing the job title, or whether Senators would now want some more time under the new circumstances.

"For the past two months members of the United States Senate and the American people have learned about the career and character of Judge Roberts," Bush said. "They like what they see. . . .

"The Senate is well along in the process of finding Judge Roberts qualified," Bush said. 'They know his record and his fidelity to the law. . . . I am confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month. "

Bush made the announcement in an 8 a.m. EDT Labor Day television appearance from the Oval Office.


That's how Mr. Rehnquist would have wanted it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 5, 2005 9:15 AM
Comments

John Roberts will most likely be the last Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the 60s generation will ever know.


That should ruin Robert Scheer, Barbara Walters, Pat Ireland, Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda's day.

Maybe I'll send out email pointing it out.

Posted by: David at September 5, 2005 9:31 AM

I'm not complaining about Roberts but I still think Thomas would have been better as chief because it would have forced the Dems to go against a prominent african-american. Bush is getting criticized by the loony-left as racist over the Katrina rescue - a Thomas nomination might have offset some of this. Then again with everything else going Bush may not had the energy to get into a big brawl over the Chief nominee.

Posted by: AWW at September 5, 2005 9:50 AM

Judging from the reaction on TV this morning, all but the ultra hard-core believers have given up trying to stop Roberts, even as chief justice nominee, and are going to focus their energy on whomever Bush picks to replace O'Connor. Of course, this may be because it's hard to foam at the mouth over New Orleans and John Roberts at the same time, and like turning around a battleship, it may take a few days to shift from attacking one area to going after another.

Posted by: John at September 5, 2005 9:54 AM

It's just as I , er, predicted, yeah that's it, yesterday.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 5, 2005 11:29 AM

Beautiful! It's like watching some fantastic, perfect display of atheletic excellence.

Now let them spend their resources on the already lost fight against Roberts and dissipate whatever credibility they may retain against the next one.

The only danger here is the temptation to vacillate and temporize, ala' Bush 41. We elected this administration to give us our country back: the next Supreme Court nomination is when we collect. Promises were made; promises must be fulfilled

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 5, 2005 11:52 AM

That was quick. Sounds like someone had already prepared a contigency plan. Imagine that.

Let's not forget that O'Connor is still on the bench until her replacement is confirmed, so Bush will be in no hurry to find her replacement again, too.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 5, 2005 11:57 AM

I do not concur that the next appointment should be delayed. We should maintain the initiative and keep the pressure on. The public is simply going to be tired of listening to Schumer and the same old arguements.

Hit them fast and hit them hard. Throw them back to saying they need to keep "balance" of the Court, as if they hadn't lost an election in which such "balsnce" had been an issue.

Additionally, it would be tactically advantageous to get this over with before the work-up to the mid-term election.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 5, 2005 3:33 PM

Bill Quick has a few comments on this topic and they're not good.

What happens if the promises made aren't fulfilled?

Guess that'll determine my 2006 stance and possibly 2008.

Posted by: Sandy P at September 5, 2005 6:01 PM

What promises haven't been fulfilled?

Posted by: oj at September 5, 2005 6:10 PM
« NO WONDER THE SCOTS USED TO BE SO SMART: | Main | GREAT NEW ATMOSPHERICS, SAME BAD POLICIES: »