Question about Supreme Court

[javasaurus]

There has been a bit of controversy recently about Bush's first Supreme Court nomination, John Roberts. I was under the impression that when Roberts was initially considered as a replacement for O'Conner, he was considered a less controversial choice than Bush might have made. There was some thought that Bush would give the Democrats an easy one, so that he (Bush) could choose a more controversial one later. Now that Roberts is slated to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice, there seems a bit more concern. Certainly, it seems strange that the Chief Justice position has been aimed at a very young (about 50?) candidate for the bench rather than a long-term veteran, and the potential reasons are clear, that Bush would be leaving a Supreme Court legacy that would last for a couple of generations. But that would be true with Roberts even as a "normal" justice. What extra power does the Chief Justice have, other than being the front-person for the Supreme Court?

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

see if this site answers your question.

the core is that he's responsible for other aspects of the federal court system and can change things *without a mandate from congress* -- congress can use their right over the courts to override him if they choose, but its rarely (probably never) been exercised before.

to take a recent example, he can make decisions that can affect whether or not the troublesome (for republicans) 9th district court (californias, and the one currently driving the "under god" brewhaha) gets handled by the courts above it. He is the man at the top of any decisions to disbar other justices for improper behavior (the courts regulate themselves, rather than congress doing it -- judicial independence and all that).

in other words, he greatly sets the tone as a matter of policy for how the judges in the courts under him behave. usually this isn't a problem, but given democratic paranoia over ANY decision made by bush (demonstrably justified), one must look at these matters carefully.

again, this is a case where Roberts has no record to speak of (or look up) and one must try to infer a lot more than would be typical. The number one ability Roberts has demonstrated so far is that he can follow orders exceptionally well. This creates a dilemna for how does one consider such a man when being assinged to a position where he has no-one to report to and no orders to follow, other than the raw words of the constitution itself?

will he pass? of course. the question today, as always, is how many democrats will vote yes. my prediction is that most will, as all they can say is "well, we're not really sure, and that's hardly grounds to reject someone".

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

Think about Republicanism now. Think about it ... say ... circa 1975. Think about all the changes that have happened in that party since then. The advantage of a long term appointment is that he sticks around. The disadvantage of a long term appointment is that the guy sticks around, even after the party has shifted with the times.