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

[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.