I have no doubt there will be any number of decisions that John Roberts will make as Chief Justice that I will disagree with. Heck, I can’t think of any SCOTUS Justice I always agree with. But I presume that there will be plenty of opportunities for me to wail and gnash my teeth over Roberts.
That said, having listened to NPR coverage of his confirmation hearings, and reading various NY Times and other articles online about them, my conclusion is that we could do far worse with a Bush appointee than Roberts — and are highly unlikely to do much better.
Indeed, my biggest concern is that, in nominating someone as outwardly reasonable and calm and polite and relatively moderate as Roberts first off, we’re being set up to have exhausted all the anti-nomination rhetoric and hyperbole on him rather than on the second candidate (either as a replacement should the Roberts nomination fail, or for the O’Conner seat) that will be coming next from the White House. I expect that one will be not nearly so palatable.
Just my guess.
Well if the Democrats want something different, they should try getting someone elected president for a change. I agree Roberts seems like a pretty good judge. It bothers me that GWB wants the new guy to be chief, though.
Well if the Democrats want something different, they should try getting someone elected president for a change.
Yup. Though, as the minority party, they do have some (worthwhile) brakes they can put on the system and influence they can exert. But, yeah, that would seem to be the key — and convincing the American public that all the dire promises of who the GOP Candidate will appoint to the court will actually come true (and/or are seen as dire by the public).
It bothers me that GWB wants the new guy to be chief, though.
I don’t think could come up with a less offensive and more congenial candidate. Again, if this gets through, then I’d expect the next candidate (though not Chief, still a Justice and a vote) to be much more “conservative.”