Justice Rehnquist dies

[Lord Kelvin]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

Looks like Bush will have to fill in another vacancy.

[GrosPoisson]

As long as it's not Alberto Gonzalez, I'm fine with who he chooses.

[Apoc]

Well, so much for the rights of women and homosexuals.

[DunNa]

Well, so much for the rights of women and homosexuals.

/dance

Seriously though your abit pesimistic, Plus whats the new guy gonna do? Repleal all gay and female rights laws/descisions in the past 50 or so years? Women really arn't pursicuted by the law and gays really arn't that bad off either (besides weddings and that whole deal I can't think of anything off the top of my head).

[Shinobi]

wasnt renquist conservative anyways? correct me if I'm wrong

[Bone_Vulture]

wasnt renquist conservative anyways? correct me if I'm wrong

I'm not certain, but that's what I was thinking as well. If that's the case, no harm done - just a conservative judge replaced with another conservative judge.

Would you like to take bets that the other judge will be white and male as well? ;)

[lucid]

I'm not certain, but that's what I was thinking as well. If that's the case, no harm done - just a conservative judge replaced with another conservative judge.

Would you like to take bets that the other judge will be white and male as well? ;)

From what I understand he was more of a 'government stay the fuck out of my life' conservative rather than a 'government protect the children from satan' conservative.

Edit: Although looking at Wikipedia that doesn't seem the case....

[Modest Genius]

worst he can do is like-for-like, so this isnt as bit an issue as O'Conner

im still somewhat mystified why an appointed position has so much control over US law, for life, just doesnt seem very democratic

[Daywalker]

All I want is an anti-affirmative action supreme court. I'm going to have to start taking civil serivce tests soon and I don't no damn hinderance because it'll be hard enough to get a job.

[lucid]

worst he can do is like-for-like, so this isnt as bit an issue as O'Conner

im still somewhat mystified why an appointed position has so much control over US law, for life, just doesnt seem very democratic

The idea is that if you have job security you will consider both the short term and long term impacts of your decision and won't just pander whatever activist group has the most voters to win the next election.

[SWATJester_os]

I'm not certain, but that's what I was thinking as well. If that's the case, no harm done - just a conservative judge replaced with another conservative judge.

Would you like to take bets that the other judge will be white and male as well? ;)

Exactly.

I'm taking Courts this semester, and the instructor is freaking shitting over this. He was writing a big thesis on why Rehnquist was going to retire in Bush's tenure, Bush was going to appoint Roberts to the Chief Justicy, and move a black female, or hispanic male to Robert's position.

He was also shitting himself to see the first time in quite some time (ever?) that a justice and his law clerk both sat on the court.

[SWATJester_os]

Regardless, Gonzalez may have made the court but NOT the chief justice appointment. In the end, even if rehnquist is replaced by an ultra conservative, the balance of power does not change. You can stop freaking out Apoc.....Roe v. Wade is safer now than it's ever been.

[Psyche]

wasnt renquist conservative anyways? correct me if I'm wrong


he was..he was the dessenter on the roe vs wade ruling

[SWATJester_os]

Nobody is THE dissenter on a ruling... you don't know which one of the justices in the 5/4 split it was that made the last ruling. And Rehnquist hasn't ALWAYS been a strict conservative.

[Modest Genius]

The idea is that if you have job security you will consider both the short term and long term impacts of your decision and won't just pander whatever activist group has the most voters to win the next election.surely that wouldnt be a problem if they werent political appointees?

[Lord Kelvin]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

Yeah, now it looks like Bush is going to have to re-replace O'Connor. Personally, I'd prefer a current justice to get the main seat instead of seeing Roberts on it, not that I have any real complaints about Roberts.

[Modest Genius]

aye, that seemed somewhat ridiculous to me, replacing the chief justice with someone who isnt even a current one. mind you, what actual difference does it make to be chief justice?

[SWATJester_os]

The chief justice is almost always replaced from outside the court. The Chief Justice presides over and reigns in the other justices. He's expected to be more knowledgable about the constitution and such than any others. Anyway, it was already expected Roberts would be moved into the Chief Justice's position, but it was expected he'd have already replaced O'Connor on the court.

Anyway the Chief Justice is the senior adjudicator for the entire nation, and thus probably the second most powerful man in the country. This means he writes the rules for the entire judicial system (through the judicial conference), as they create/modify the FRCP. If he's in the majority opinion on a case, he either writes the opinion himself, or chooses an associate justice for him. He presides over the impeachment of a president. According to wiki, he also is the chancellor of the smithsonian institute....never knew that. Anyway of our 16 past chief justices, only 3 have been appointed from an associate justice position.

[SWATJester_os]

Oh, and the most important thing is that the SCOTUS is created by the constitution, all lower courts are created by congress. This means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the direct voice of the Constitution, checked by the other justices.

[Apoc]

Checked only if they disagree and are allowed to disagree. An all "conservative" (or liberal or whatever) panel wouldn't exactly be ideal for the system of checks and balances. All three branches of government...the horror...

[SWATJester_os]

Yes, but, if the entire court were ideologically aligned one direction, and forcing things their way, it would violated their length of term of office, being "good behavior"....thus, they could be removed by congress.

The closest we've ever come to that was Roosevelt's appointing 8 of the 9 justices.

[Moe_Rahn]

Yes, but, if the entire court were ideologically aligned one direction, and forcing things their way, it would violated their length of term of office, being "good behavior"....thus, they could be removed by congress.

The closest we've ever come to that was Roosevelt's appointing 8 of the 9 justices.
Well, he had 13 years, I'm not entirely surprised that he did.

[Modest Genius]

hmm, seems somewhat weird to appoint someone to the most powerful legal position in the country without them having experience of the second most powerful

still, if thats the way it is done...

[SWATJester_os]

I think Owen Roberts was the only one he did not appoint....coincidentally it was Roberts who instigated the "switch in time that saved nine".

[SWATJester_os]

hmm, seems somewhat weird to appoint someone to the most powerful legal position in the country without them having experience of the second most powerful

still, if thats the way it is done...


Most justices end up coming from the US Court of Appeals (i.e. the circuit courts), in which they learn how to handle appellate cases. Certain circuits (the 9th, the DC, etc.) are arguably just as influential as the USSC.