It's the end of the world as we know it...

Politics, philosophy, the law, current events, left leaning debates, religion, baseball, football, pop culture, growing up Greek, random events in my life...whatever hits my mind at the time.

5.9.05

Bush nominates Roberts as Chief Justice. This is interesting. And frightening. On the one hand, it's incredibly better than Scalia ... I think. And that's really the second hand. Roberts has little experience as a Judge, and it's difficult to tell where his dogma lies, truly. Will he be of the Scalia/Thomas elk? Or not? May he be a Souter? (A Republican, by the way.) I'm not holding out hope for another Warren (also a Republican, incidently.)

Bush certainly thinks that he's a Scaliaa, and perhaps his short history suggest so. But you can never really be sure. The fact that he choose someone who isn't currently on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice isn't itself unusual or anything. My only reservation is that fact that Roberts doesn't have much of a judicial background to judge hom on at all.

And as for Rehnquist, who unfortunately died Saturday night, I wasn't a Rehnquist fan. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate him like I have this UGH feeling for Scalia and Thomas (Thomas b/c of his intellectualism - or lack thereof - and Scalia for his opinions. And since Thomas isn't intelligent enough to have his own opinions or know his own mind, Scalia for Thomas's opinions too.) Rehnquist wasn't along my idiological lines, and I rarely agreed with him. As Matthew pointed out, I'm not going to change my mind because he's dead. Though I am sorry that he had to suffer from cancer at the end of his life. And his long tenure on the Court is certaintly admirable. He influenced several decisions. He is certainly a historical figure, and will be missed, surely. But I'm not going to talk about how great he is now that he's dead.

3 Comments:

  • At 2:06 AM, Blogger Ontario Emperor said…

    How much does it truly matter whether Roberts is nominated for Chief Justice or as an Associate Justice? Other than a convenient way to name a court (Warren, Burger, Rehnquist), it's inconsequential.

    John Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford, by the way.

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said…

    It matters a lot, because of his ability to shape things.

    I think Thomas is smarter than you think, and I think Scalia is not a brilliant as he is rumored to be.

    Reputations, once made, are hard to shake.

    Bush is pretty smart, but he is still obtuse and uncultured. Nevertheless, he's a master manipulator when he wants to be.

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Me said…

    Ontario, I disagree. The Chief Judge decides who writes the opinions - don't discount that. It's what the law "is."

    Stevens wasn't quite the shock of the others I mentioned.

    Gothamimage, That's what I think about the ability to shape. But I diagree about Thomas. This isn't just MY opinion. It's the opinion in DC AND among his collegues, who work with him day in an day out. And I disagree on Scalia. I dislike him, but from his writing, he may be the best writer ever on the court. He's hysterical and brilliant and biting. I don't agree with his legal analysis, but his jurisprudence is easily defined and easy to tell how he'll vote based on that jurisprudence.

    Bush is pretty smart? HA!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Site
Meter Blogarama - The Blog Directory Listed on Blogwise Listed in LS Blogs Blog Directory & Search engine

Days until Bush leaves office.
Designed by georgedorn and provided by Positronic Design.
Grab your own copy here.