I thought (mistakenly) that the President's change in nomination for Roberts to CJ was breaking with tradition/policy (I thought that there was some kind of line of succession dealing with tenure on the bench), but in actuality, most CJ nominees don't have any Associate Justice experience.
Right. Rehnquist was a rare exception to the traditional means by which one becomes the Chief Justice of the United States. And Rehnquist arguably became Chief only because the Reagan Administration wanted to send the Scalia nomination under the radar.
There have been 16 Chief Justices, but only 3 (Rehnquist, elevated in 1986; Harlan Stone, elevated in 1941; and Edward White, elevated in 1910) were elevated from associate justice to Chief.
Still, Roberts short tenure on the Fed bench, combined with his lack of paper-trail and controversial past decisions in cases involving women and minorities should be a big pause for concern. His work in the 2000 election, effectively stopping a full recount of the State Of Florida ballots for the President, which later proved Gore won, is inexcusable as a servant of the people of the United States.
If that were some sort of litmus test, dan, lawyers who participate in controversial cases would be effectively disqualified from judicial service. That can't possibly be a good idea, since, generally speaking, the lawyers who are involved in the most controversial cases tend to be the best and the brightest -- the lawyers who are most likely to be in the pool of high federal court candidates.
In 2000, Roberts was in private practice. There is no question that he is a Republican, and there is no question that he supports this President. While he was in private practice, there was no reason for him to shy away from participating in one of the most important cases in the history of this country. Had Gore won the election and Roberts played a key role in that result, I doubt that you'd be so concerned with the work he did, and I seriously doubt that you'd view it as some sort of disqualifying activity.
I would agree that Roberts' short judicial service raises valid questions about his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court (though it's not as if he'd be the first to reach that Court with little or no judicial experience). His stated positions on issues likely to reach the Court are also subject to valid questions.
His support of a political candidate in a significant lawsuit, however, is not germane to his qualifications to sit on the Court.
FWD, how did CJ Warren (Who I understand only had a couple of months experience on the bench before being elevated) rate as a Chief Justice?
The view of Warren's legacy depends almost entirely on where you stand in the political spectrum. The Warren Court was responsible for decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. It expanded the rights of the accused under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Civil Rights groups and Civil Libertarians generally cite the Warren Court as a paragon of protecting the individual's rights. Conservatives generally think that the Warren Court went too far and that much of what ails the American justice system today is attributable to the decisional law of the Warren Court.
I think most lawyers who carefully study the Supreme Court as an ins ution would view Warren as an effective Chief Justice among the modern Chiefs. He was at least on a par with Chief Justice Rehnquist and far more effective than Chief Justice Burger. If anything, reports are that Rehnquist took many cues from the way that Warren operated the Court.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
