I'm hedging, but I'd say a toss-up between Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada...

9/3/2005 11:21:25 PM

Migeul Estrada isn't even a justice... yet. I hope he gets on the board.

I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE IT IS CLARENCE THOMAS! OH PLEASE GOD LET IT BE THOMAS!

9/3/2005 11:25:03 PM

SHIT! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9/3/2005 11:34:08 PM

Quote :

"abonorio: Migeul Estrada isn't even a justice... yet."

True, but there are no Hispanics on the Supreme Court to pick from so Estrada seems the obvious choice if he wants to go that route. I'd prefer Thomas myself though.

[Edited on September 3, 2005 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ---]

9/3/2005 11:34:15 PM

has a non sc justice ever been nominated and sent directly to the chief spot?

But God I hope it's Thomas. I would need a change of pants if that were the choice.

9/3/2005 11:35:18 PM

^
Absolutely, it's fairly common.

3 of the last 4 Chief Justices (going backwards, Warren Burger, Earl Warren, and Fred Vinson) were appointed directly to the CJ spot

9/3/2005 11:43:19 PM

Huh. You learn something everyday. I didn't know that was a practice.

9/3/2005 11:50:13 PM

Janice Rogers Brown, DC Circuit
Miguel Estrada
J. Harvie Wilkinson, 4th circuit
J. Michael Luttig, 4th Circuit
Professor Mary Ann Glendon

9/3/2005 11:52:09 PM

Pat Robertson

9/3/2005 11:52:49 PM

Scalia... oh plz, oh plz.

9/3/2005 11:55:07 PM

Scalia, isnt the chief chosen by # of years?

9/3/2005 11:55:50 PM

really

does it matter?

9/3/2005 11:59:51 PM

It doesn't really. Their vote is equal to the other eight's vote. They just get to talk a little more.

I say Roberts has as good a shot at it as anyone.

9/4/2005 12:05:09 AM

The Chief Justice is selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is quite rare to elevate a sitting Justice to the Chief Justice position.

The advantages a Chief Justice has is that they get to select the writer of the opinion if they are in the majority. This gives the Chief Justice the power, if he sees that he is going to be in the minority, to vote with the majority just so he can take the opinion for himself and then write it very very narrowly.

[Edited on September 4, 2005 at 12:10 AM. Reason : add]

9/4/2005 12:08:44 AM

Scalia baby!

9/4/2005 12:17:18 AM

Lucifer, son of the morning.

9/4/2005 12:43:25 AM

You can't go wrong with either Scalia or Thomas.

9/4/2005 8:18:37 AM

I'm pretty sure it'll be Scaley-a.

9/4/2005 11:13:50 AM

It won't be Thomas. You can bet he does NOT want to go through another Senate confirmation process.

9/4/2005 11:26:58 AM

^
he would if Bush asked him. And surely Bush would think it will help shore up the poor Katrina response, plus he'd then have to appoint someone to replace Thomas's seat (something like Janice Rogers Brown)

9/4/2005 11:56:11 AM

Anyone who voted against the expansion of eminent domain laws is fine with me.

9/4/2005 12:23:45 PM

^^

Nah. There's just no way, especially not if he's married.

9/4/2005 1:37:08 PM

^
You're still thinking in the 1980s. This is the 2000s man.

It's like Ann Coulter said, "we have the media now"

9/4/2005 3:18:24 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who voted against the expansion of eminent domain laws is fine with me."

I never thought I'd agree with anything MathFreak said. Wow.

9/4/2005 4:00:15 PM

^^

Dude, the fact of the matter is, he will have to relive that whole fiasco if he's nominated. It doesn't matter if it plays out well in the end, or if people like him; you're talking about an intensely demeaning and difficult process for someone to go through.

9/4/2005 9:59:48 PM

Quote :

"TGD: It's like Ann Coulter said, "we have the media now""

You crazy conservatives can't seem to make up your mind about this one. Let's bring up the war in Iraq for a second, then we'll see who "has the media now" according to t3h r1ght.

9/4/2005 11:03:36 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Dude, the fact of the matter is, he will have to relive that whole fiasco if he's nominated."

No chance in hell. And you can quote me on that.

Teh L3ft is winning enough on the war, even I don't think they're idiotic enough to waste all of that political capital revisiting the Anita Hill BS...

9/4/2005 11:06:57 PM

Could Scalia survive reconfirmation by the Senate better than Thomas?

9/4/2005 11:54:21 PM

Yes; Harry Reid said that Scalia would be a good choice as Chief Justice.

9/5/2005 12:16:00 AM

^^^

I don't think we're talking about Teh L3ft here specifically, but rather the usual shit-storm. The shadow of the confirmation hearings will lurk in every press release, and every media report as Clarence Thomas's name resurfaces. It really only has to be mentioned once in public to become a popular meme again; I doubt Robert's Rules of Order will ever be Thomas's main problem. Whisper campaigns and plain old crappy media will make his life Hell.

You do realize the media plays off what people like to hear about, right? The original confirmation hearings had phenomenal ratings for a political farce, and that translates into $texas.

9/5/2005 1:42:32 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who voted against the expansion of eminent domain laws is fine with me."

Quote :

"I never thought I'd agree with anything MathFreak said. Wow."

9/5/2005 1:55:03 AM

Stevens

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

9/5/2005 2:22:33 AM

It will be a minority

9/5/2005 2:23:21 AM

Looks like it's John Roberts. Odd...

9/5/2005 7:49:49 AM

^ uhh.... yeah, my thoughts exactly..... I just saw that in the "breaking news" tagline on cnn.com, but don't see a full story yet.
so a extremely young (by supreme court terms, at least) guy with a sparsely known history all of a sudden nominated for Chief Justice??? I truely hope this is not an attempt to get this approved through Congress because it will be overshadowed by a national emergency....

9/5/2005 8:32:42 AM

^

Seems more like a "two nominations for the price of one" decision to me. Since Roberts is oh-so-agreeable anyway, this basically just amounts to President Bush stacking the deck. Now Democrats don't have to worry about a (presumably) more conservative judge being nominated to the chief justice position, so he's all the more a shoo-in.

9/5/2005 8:38:59 AM

Bush wants to leave his mark for decades. Scalia won't live much longer.

9/5/2005 8:42:50 AM

9/5/2005 9:03:04 AM

it's gonna be John Roberts - just announced about half an hour ago

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ]

9/5/2005 9:13:32 AM

Has a Supreme Court nominee ever become the Chief Justice at the same time he's been nominated?

9/5/2005 9:16:53 AM

Yes, if you read the thread:

Quote :

"3 of the last 4 Chief Justices (going backwards, Warren Burger, Earl Warren, and Fred Vinson) were appointed directly to the CJ spot"

9/5/2005 1:54:35 PM

Quote :

"I say Roberts has as good a shot at it as anyone."

What do I win?

9/5/2005 1:57:27 PM

Brian, I think pryderi 's question relates to the fact that Judge Roberts was a nominee for associate Justice and got eleveted to a chief justice nomination before his confirmation hearings even started

I have a feeling it's happened before, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now... :-)

9/5/2005 2:33:03 PM

i don't want roberts as Chief Justice.

9/5/2005 2:36:21 PM

Quote :

"Brian, I think pryderi 's question relates to the fact that Judge Roberts was a nominee for associate Justice and got eleveted to a chief justice nomination before his confirmation hearings even started"

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I worded it poorly.

9/5/2005 2:47:53 PM

makes a bit more sense now... that's a good question. I, as well, am too lazy to look it up.

9/5/2005 3:37:14 PM

Judge Reinhold

9/5/2005 3:40:21 PM

Judge Dredd

9/5/2005 3:50:27 PM

I AM THE LAW!

9/5/2005 4:03:52 PM

^ Second!

9/5/2005 4:07:38 PM