September 05, 2005
Bush Acts Quickly ... When He Wants To
I was taken aback at how quickly Bush rolled out his decision following Rehnquist's death, compared to how quickly he's rolled out everything else lately. I tell ya, when it's something the Court of George II cares about, they move fast.
I've had a lot of coffee and I'm in a conspiracy kind of mood. So the Bush Administration wants Roberts confirmed as chief justice of the United States before October 3. In his press conference, he kept emphasizing the need to move quickly.
Of course he wants Congress to move fast. If Congress is all tied up with confirming Roberts, whose nomination has even higher stakes now that he is primed to be chief justice, they won't be investigating the botched response to Hurricane Katrina.
All of Congress should say "Hold your horses - we've got other business to clean up here!" I'm concerned that too many members of Congress will be thrilled to wash their hands of the unpleasantness of Katrina. Congress should hold off on everything that doesn't have to do with Katrina. Katrina's victims and a thorough investigation into the emergency response or lack thereof must be the top priority.
To anyone who says differently, John Roberts is young. He can wait for his turn at the top because there's a whole bunch of people in line ahead of him who need a little attention from the government.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Acts Quickly ... When He Wants To:
The line the Dems should keep harping on is, "Why can't the court run with seven Justices. It has in the past and there's no possibility of an even split with seven. The men and woman on the court are highly qualified and competent. Let us not act with haste."
Posted by: pfc | Sep 5, 2005 3:26:38 PM
Now that is the kind of line I would love to hear!
Posted by: Pepper | Sep 5, 2005 3:45:15 PM
Call me crazy, but is there anything technically requiring more than 7 justices? Policitcal feasability aside, could the Democrats simply filibuster any new appointments? Am I forgetting a constitutional amendment?
Frankly, if we had a sane political climate, both sides would agree it's time to consider a consitutional amendmant to clarify the process of appointing justices and to make it more politically equitable: this system of spoils to the party which just happens to have the WH at the moment is flat out dumb; moreover, pretending that judges are--or even can--be 'above politics' is delussional (I'm talking about a basic naivite about legal theory, not about the human frailty of potential justices*). As it stands, our discourse is just bullshitting about how the only qualification for a justice is one who understands that the 'the law is the law'; it's not a debate that's going to get us anywhere.
*I actually believe we reasonably can expect judges to set aside their prejudices of what the law ought to be; in fact, I think this is generally what we get--or at least, the justices convince themselves that that's what they're doing (even--especially--Scalia).
Posted by: aPantomimeHorse | Sep 5, 2005 5:15:08 PM
LOL. Great (desparate) minds think alike.
Posted by: aPantomimeHorse | Sep 5, 2005 5:16:09 PM
I thought the same thing when I heard about Rehnquist. As it stands now without O'Connor and Rehnquist, there are four liberals and three conservatives, with Stevens as chief.
The only monkey wrench in these works is O'Connor. She said she was resigning effective as of the confirmation of her replacement, so technically, she'll be on the court until she has a replacement, so we can't just get rid of her seat.
Posted by: Greg | Sep 5, 2005 8:23:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.