In practical terms, it actually makes sense, because O’Connor is staying around until they find her replacement, so it leaves us with a full court.
In realistic terms, I think they were in la-la land for nominating a guy with two years of experience as a judge to the court, no less to Chief Justice. Ezra notes:
Senators, now, have to evaluate his acceptability as a) a Justice on the Supreme Court and b) the new head and leader of the Court, probably for then next 4 decades. This is a very, very savvy move by Bush. If the Senate had confirmed Roberts but not made him chief, Stevens, a liberal, would've become acting chief by virtue of seniority, and when the session opened, unless a Chief could be hustled onto the Court, liberals would have held as many seats as conservatives and they'd be setting the agenda. Roberts, too, is young, he'll have the power to reshape and direct the Court for four or five decades -- that's some fucking appointment for a guy who's only been a judge for two years!Indeed. Democrats need to get it together on this one and stop fucking worrying about being seen as obstructionist. The guy is shaping up more and more to be a really fucking unappealing choice to begin with, and if he’s going to be the Chief Justice for the next nine hundred years or so, then his appointment warrants additional scrutiny. Do Americans really want a hardline conservative leading the court for a long, long time?
They’ve seen the ugly side of conservatism revealed in New Orleans. The Dems need to make that clear. The beliefs held by these people are un-American. Period.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus