*=recently updated

Matthew Hoy currently works as a metro page designer at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The opinions presented here do not represent those of the Union-Tribune and are solely those of the author.

If you have any opinions or comments, please e-mail the author at: hoystory -at- cox -dot- net.

Dec. 7, 2001
Christian Coalition Challenged
Hoystory interviews al Qaeda
Fisking Fritz
Politicizing Prescription Drugs

<< current

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005
John Paul Stevens for chief justice: In the wake of William Rehnquist's death and John Roberts' subsequent shift to filling the chief justice vacancy, senators Chuck Schumer, John Corzine and Teddy Kennedy have said that this raises the stakes for his nomination.

"The chief justice is the most important judge in the country, with even more responsibility for the protection of the rights and freedoms of all Americans," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Thus John Roberts bears a heavier burden when he comes before the Senate."

Kennedy is a lawyer, yet his legal recitation of the chief justice's duties are, well, wrong.

The chief justice's additional "powers" are mostly ceremonial and mostly useless for the protection of "the rights and freedoms of all Americans." It's not like the chief justice's vote counts as two versus just one for the associate justices. Heck, the only substantive benefit for Roberts of being nominated chief justice is that Steven Breyer still has to jump up and open the door when the justices are meeting in chambers.

For that reason, a meaningless sop to the loony left would be to nominate John Paul Stevens to the chief justice's slot. It's all much ado about nothing.

12:47 AM

Actually Matt, the Chief Justice (or the most senior justice in the majority if the Chief is in the minority) assigns the opinion. Believe me, that is an important power, the reason why Bush would never nominate Stevens as a sop to the left. Many times in history, the Chief Justice who would normally vote in the minority changes his vote to the majority and assigns himself the opinion so he can water down what the majority would normal set as law. Locke v. Davey is an example. If Rehnquist was in the minority, the liberals would have banned states from funding scholarships for students who want to study theology. Instead, the Chief wrote the decision stating that states can choose to fund them, or not. That is a huge difference.
Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger Pro™