Bush Nominates Roberts As Chief Justice
 

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a man who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices.

"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."

"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others. in his extraordinary career."

The selection of Roberts, who has drawn little criticism, helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the president's approval ratings are sagging.

Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.

"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes," Bush said. "It's in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term."

Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans "like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness." He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.

The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.

for full article...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_su_co/scotus

Looks like roe vs wade is doomed.

I don't really keep up with this, but woudn't it make more sense to "promote" someone who has already been on the Supreme Court for awhile to Chief Justice? Since they already have experience being on the "high court"?

John Roberts is the new guy, isn't he?

I think someone else from the court needs to be nominated for Chief Justice. Roberts needs some experience under his belt before he gets that job, IMO.

Just don't let Clarence Thomas be nominated.

According to the story I read, the "promotion" path is pretty rare. The justice being promoted would have to have another set of confirmation hearings, and someone still would have to be nominated to fill the associate justice position. Three sets of hearings instead of two.

Only 3 of the 16 chief justices have been promoted from the high court.

Doing it this way seems to make the most sense for the President (in that it saves a confirmation hearing), plus it seems like he wanted Roberts for Chief Justice all along. He just never expected O'Connor to retire before Rehnquist died.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." — Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w090602D23.DTL)

I also think it's too early to declare Roe v. Wade "doomed," although I'm not surprised that you used that wording.

At the risk of sounding like an airhead, I think John Roberts is really, really good looking.

My democratic sister claims that he was nominated as part of a "Republican conspiracy to lure more women to the dark side", but has conceded that he is, indeed, a cutie.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

Roberts gives his response after being asked about the abortion issue on the second day of confirmation hearings...

So there that is - can we stop with the Chicken Little action now?

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Ok, not to sound like a dumbass or anything here... But I just don't understand some of these legal terms. Can someone please explain what exactly he is saying? Does he agree with Roe v. Wade or would he rather see abortion made illegal? I have heard a lot about him recently, but it all seems to be getting jumbled together.

Ok, just found this on MSN. It helps a little bit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/

Roberts fields questions on abortion, power
Nominee tells Specter overturning settled law ‘a jolt to the legal system’


Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET Sept. 13, 2005
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

“It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Roberts, however, declined to discuss his views on Roe v. Wade, twice dodging answering specific questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., saying that there are abortion-related cases on the court’s docket But Roberts called the concept of legal precedent a “very important consideration.”

On the second day of his confirmation hearings, President Bush’s choice for the nation’s 17th chief justice said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years.

Precedent defended
“It’s entitled to respect under those principles,” Roberts said. “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent. It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided.”

In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren’t surprised by Roberts’ comments Tuesday but would watch him closely.

“We’re concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it’s time for him to rule on these cases as a justice,” Newman said.

Roberts also dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he was confirmed to be the nation’s 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

Specter cited President Kennedy’s statement in September 1960 that he did speak for his church on public matters and the church did not speak for him.

“I agree with that, Senator, yes,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis explained
“There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by a decision” and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, “I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”

If I read that article correctly, it's a fancy way to say "No comment."

Not really - I see it more as that he'll respect it as precedent and not seek to overturn it.

Rob, hopefully you're right and the chicken little talk goes out the window.

I find his references to stare decisis to be particularly meaningful, considerably more so than 'no comment.'

Agreed. It's obviously hard to say what he thinks when he can't answer what he thinks of it flat-out, but it seems like he at least respects the decision of the court and won't attempt to change it.