An idea for replacing Rehnquist
The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist has left two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and will no doubt throw Bush's opponents into a pitched state of heightened anxiety. What's unclear to me is why. After all, a Rehnquist departure represented the only realistic chance to move the Supreme Court to the left during Bush's tenure. There is almost no chance that Bush will be able to replace Rehnquist with an equally conservative jurist in the current political climate.
Also, I just heard on the news that Chuck Schumer is echoing Arlen Specter's (silly) idea of asking retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor to serve as chief justice, even if temporarily.
I have a much better idea. Bush should elevate John Paul Stevens, who is now the court's most senior member, to Chief Justice. In addition to his seniority, Justice Stevens is arguably the most liberal justice on the bench. I think such a gesture of goodwill may help ease the confirmation process that lies ahead, and which just became doubly difficult.
Thoughts? Comments?
UPDATE: Well, it didn't happen. Bush will nominate Roberts for chief justice. I guess that makes sense. He probably doesn't relish the prospects of three SCOTUS confirmation hearings in the current climate.
Comments
There is no gesture that would generate goodwill on the part of most Democrats. My suggestion is that Bush replace Rehnquist with an equally conservative judge and the Senate should take all steps necessary to ensure that the candidate gets confirmed.
Posted by: CRB | September 4, 2005 07:51 PM
I think Bush can use this to force the Senate to confirm Roberts quickly by not naming a replacement for Rehnquist until after Roberts is confirmed. Then he can name another strong conservative (luttig, clement or even, gasp, rogers brown) and get away with it becuase it would be a conservative replacing a conservative.
Posted by: ChrisW | September 4, 2005 08:30 PM
I think it's a good idea. Throw the libs a meaningless bone and make it look like Bush is willing to compromise. Symbolism is more important than substance with that crowd anyway.
Posted by: Kentucky Gambler | September 4, 2005 08:46 PM
I think that your suggestion is a great idea but is out of the question. Bush is not someone from whom to expect a gesture of goodwill. He has shown repeatedly that he will do the wrong thing no matter what.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 4, 2005 10:01 PM
As liberals have proven, no good deed goes unpunished. A gesture such as this may be made in goodwill, but conservatives will see it as a betrayal and liberals will see it weakness from a presumed lame duck president, emboldening them to be even more obstructionist.
"He has shown he will do the wrong thing no matter what."
Do you have an argument here? Any supporting facts? If you do, great, lets have a reasoned debate. Otherwise troll elsewhere, thanks.
Posted by: ChrisW | September 4, 2005 11:56 PM
Of course. There are many arguments and supporting facts for that statement, but it would take several pages to go randomly over them.
Posted by: Blue Wind | September 5, 2005 07:25 AM
Sounds like a cop out to me.
Posted by: ChrisW | September 5, 2005 06:41 PM