Whatever happened to Clarence Thomas?
This past weekend, while the American world focused on the horrendous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, and newly appointed judge John Roberts, who has not even yet been confirmed, was nominated by Bush to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice.This strikes me as very unconventional, but the media doesn't seem to be making a big deal about it. Assuming Bush wants to nominate a conservative, why not choose Clarence Thomas, who's been sitting on the bench for a good many years now? Politically and judiciously, I don't see why the young and less experienced Roberts is the best canidate from any perspective other than that of a white supremecist, since Thomas is black. I've got nothing against Roberts - I just don't get it. Under pressure for responding with lackluster to the Katrina disaster, Bush could do a world of good to his image with the black community by nominating Thomas. I'm not advocating race-based court nominations, but what aboutRoberts is any better than Thomas?
Can someone help me out here?
Maybe I'd like to be Chief Justice, eh? Ever think of that?
UPDATE: StandingOutInTheCold reports that in the past, most chief justices were NOT nominated from current associate judges. This makes it seem a lot less un-orthodox, but I still want to know what Roberts has that Thomas doesn't offer besides a controversial track record of very conservative opinions.
UPDATE2: sorry for mispelling "chief" like it was my job.
posted by RJ @ 7:34 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Standingout pointed out that it is historically unconventional to appoint a chief justice from within.
I think it may be political... I'm not sure if the Chief Justice has any extra powers, but appointing the youngest member would factor for the maximum duration of a conservative chief justice?
The chief doesn't officially have any extra powers. However, he is supposed to have extra leadership and basically is the first among equals. It seems to me that there is no reason to elevate Thomas because, as jackscolon pointed out, this way we are assured a good chief for as long as possible, and Thomas' opinions will count for just as much whether he is associate or chief. Furthermore, I don't think that Thomas has displayed the kind of leadership that you want in a chief Justice. The idea is that over the next few years, especially this year, the dynamic of the Court needs to change dramatically. It seems to me that a great way to shake things up is to bring in someone young and new to head things up rather than promoting someone from within, especially when he has shown no indication that he possesses the leadership skills to really change things.
And a shameless plug for myself: as Jackscolon also pointed out right now my blog has a post about why it is more traditional to appoint a chief Justice from outside the Court.
I didn't notice you're update before I posted my comment -- thanks for the link and sorry for over-promoting myself.
A further point in response to your idea that Bush could boost his image with the black community with a Thomas elevation: I don't think that Bush cares about his image with the black community at this point. Bush will never run for an elected office again, so I don't think it really matters to him, the religious right are loud enough right now to give him enough backing to do what he wants without losing all support from congress. The black opinion really doesn't change anything, politically speaking, for Bush at this point. And, for the reasons I've pointed out above, I think that Bush believes a chief Justice Roberts will be more effective is shaping the Court to what Bush is moving towards. In the same vein, don't expect Bush to nominate a minority or moderate candidate to fill O'Connor's spot either. Politics don't effect his choices now, its all about who he thinks will make the Court the way he thinks it should be, and that means a pretty conservative Justice. If it happens to be a minority, great, but I can pretty much guarantee that Bush won't endanger the future of the Court -- in his thinking -- to gain political "capital" that doesn't help him much. That's the double-edged sword of second-term SC nominations. Furthermore, expect Bush to nominate someone fairly young, like Roberts, to make sure that his nomination has the maximum lasting effect on the Court.
What I heard is that the American Bar Association and other legal authorities said that Roberts is the best legal mind in the country since at least John Marshall. Apparently this guy is brilliant and all the legal "people" expected him to be selected on his record and intelligence along. Plus the fact that his kid can dance at press conferences. Also, this way he only has to go through one confirmation process instead of two.
huh. I hadn't heard he was *that* good. Well, I guess it sounds like a good decision then. It just took me by surprise.
Post a Comment
<< Home