Chief Justice of the United States

[qwerty]

Rehnquist has been hinting that he plans to retire soon, and, the man is almost 80. Who will his replacement be? It depends on whether Bush or Kerry is president, I suppose.

[PBrunsel]

It would be funny if Roy Moore gets the position. I would have not problem with Chief Justice Roy Moore.

[Dave from Michigan]

Scalia

[classical liberal]

Neither Moore nor Scalia would get through the senate.  Not only would the Democrats minus Miller stonewall, the Northern Republicans (Collins, Specter, Chafee, etc) would too.  Maybe even Coleman, though it would depend if he had grow out of his vote straight down party lines on everything the first two years stage.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Roy Moron doesn't deserve the word "justice" to be anywhere near his title.

It would be funny if Roy Moore gets the position. I would have not problem with Chief Justice Roy Moore.

[??????????]

Roy Moron doesn't deserve the word "justice" to be anywhere near his title.

It would be funny if Roy Moore gets the position. I would have not problem with Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Roy Moore stood up for the States RIGHT to display a monument in the courthouse.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

He stood up for his right to his own ego.  He did nothing for the state of Alabama.  He is a disgrace.

I still blame the liberals though for creating the monster....

Roy Moron doesn't deserve the word "justice" to be anywhere near his title.

It would be funny if Roy Moore gets the position. I would have not problem with Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Roy Moore stood up for the States RIGHT to display a monument in the courthouse.

[migrendel]

Roy Moore caused a Constitutional crisis by defying an order of a court superior to his. The rule of law cannot be sustained unless people like Roy Moore put aside their personal predilections and enforce judicial decisions. And he was on the wrong side of the Constitution anyway.

[migrendel]

Well, I have thought this issue out legalistically, and I still believe that the state is violating the Constitution by displaying that monument.

[© tweed]

Sandra Day O'Connor.

[zachman]

Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hasn't that only happened once? Associate Justices don't get moved up to Chief Justice if my memory isn't failing me.

[© tweed]

But it can happen...

[zachman]

But it can happen...

Nah, Presidents like to promote their new rock stars in CHief Justices.

[California Dreamer]

O Conner wants to go too.

I would bet that Kerry or Bush  will be replacing two Justices in the next Presidential term.

[lidaker]

They're pretty old most of them.

Rehnquist, b. 1924 - 79 years
Stevens, b. 1920 - 84 years
O'Connor, b. 1930 - 74 years
Scalia, b. 1936 - 68 years
Kennedy, b. 1936 - 67 years
Souter, b. 1939 - 64 years
Thomas, b. 1948 - 55 years
Ginsburg, b. 1933 - 71 years
Breyer, b. 1938 - 65 years

[lidaker]

And seven out of nine have been nominated by a republican president.

Rehnquist - Nixon
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - Bush
Thomas - Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

And seven out of nine have been nominated by a republican president.

Rehnquist - Nixon
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - Bush
Thomas - Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

The Dems got really unlucky in the 70's...Carter is the only full-term President in history never to appoint a SC Justice.

[lidaker]

And seven out of nine have been nominated by a republican president.

Rehnquist - Nixon
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - Bush
Thomas - Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

The Dems got really unlucky in the 70's...Carter is the only full-term President in history never to appoint a SC Justice.

Really? Looks like Bush No. 2 will be the second one then.

[lidaker]

What is necessary?

[??????????]

Well, I have thought this issue out legalistically, and I still believe that the state is violating the Constitution by displaying that monument.

What law is violated? The fictional "seperation of church and state" law?

[migrendel]

Um, a pretty clear line of precedent, statute, and any reasonable understanding of the first amendment, which is primarily disfavored by the religious right and those who don't understand the law themselves.

In addition, NixonNow, the president appoints an associate justice to replace the vacancy caused by the new Chief Justice's elevation. That's how Antonin Scalia got on the Court.

[??????????]

Um, a pretty clear line of precedent, statute, and any reasonable understanding of the first amendment, which is primarily disfavored by the religious right and those who don't understand the law themselves.

In addition, NixonNow, the president appoints an associate justice to replace the vacancy caused by the new Chief Justice's elevation. That's how Antonin Scalia got on the Court.

Precedent does not equal law. The constitution does not say "seperation of church and state" and to say that's what the founders meant is crazy. Colonial and early American documents are filled with the terms of "God" and "Divine Providence". What the amendment is talking about is that the government will not have a state run religion like the Church of England. It does not mean the state can't financially support religion(s). No where does it say its unconstitutional to have a 10 commandments monument either. BTW, Polk County Courthouse has a monument to the 10 commandments and no one has challenged it!

[migrendel]

Let me remind you that what the founding fathers might have thought about religion in public life is irrelevant. Contemporary jurisprudence must recognize that the phrase "an establishment of religion" might have a distinctly different meaning. The role of our courts is to occasionally redefine the boundaries of Constitutional protections so that they may always encompass the freedoms of all Americans, even as our nation grows and changes. A Supreme Court that can do just that prevents the necessity of adopting a new Constitution every twenty-five years. I, for one, think that this new understanding of government and religion is fundamental to a modern society, and can only benison religious liberty by keeping the government neutral on questions of faith.

In addition, you are quite incorrect in your analysis of our contemporary law. Locke v. Davey recently prevented a state from subsidizing a religious institution of higher education. This was a 7-2 decision supported by that radical reprobate, the liberal William Rehnquist. While some financial support of religion has been allowed, such as in the cases of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York, it has always been indirect. In addition, a 1980 decision of the Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, barred public school classrooms from displaying the Ten Commandments. Now, it's not much of a stretch to extend that precedent to reach the results of Glassroth v. Moore, which when appealled, even won the support of conservative Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit. So, you can say what you want, but you would be rejected by the standard views of all the judicature.

[??????????]

Let me remind you that what the founding fathers might have thought about religion in public life is irrelevant. Contemporary jurisprudence must recognize that the phrase "an establishment of religion" might have a distinctly different meaning. The role of our courts is to occasionally redefine the boundaries of Constitutional protections so that they may always encompass the freedoms of all Americans, even as our nation grows and changes. A Supreme Court that can do just that prevents the necessity of adopting a new Constitution every twenty-five years. I, for one, think that this new understanding of government and religion is fundamental to a modern society, and can only benison religious liberty by keeping the government neutral on questions of faith.

Isn't the whole point of this "experiment" called the United States is to stick by the constitution as close to the original document as possible.

[migrendel]

No.