Stupid Supreme Court Justice Question

[maxrandb]

"If a Democrat is elected in 2008, can he nominate one of the sitting judges to replace Roberts as Chief Justice, even if their is no vacancy"? or are we stuck with this guy as Chief Justice until he dies?

[mtnester]

1. Answer - stuck till death or retirement

do I win the stupid prize of the day?

[Tyler Durden]

2. Actually, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.

Remember the "IMPEACH EARL WARREN" bumperstickers, one of the pre-neocon conservative talking points?

[FreedomAngel82]

3. I didn't know that

Is that true? Why would a judge be impeached?

[Tyler Durden]

6. Misconduct or Conduct Unbecoming...

Of course Scalia or Thomas could fuck a goat or a 10 year old boy on National TV and it would still be hard to get the rePukes to impeach them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Spot on. If going fishing with the VP BEFORE the ruling on the

Cheney energy meetings, isn't a conflict of interest, NOTHING is.

[DelawareValleyDem]

11. various reasons

the one Nixon who was impeached, Walt Nixon, was a federal judge brought up on perjury charges and removed. Other offense have included income tax evasion and abuse of power.

http://www.courtzero.org/impeach.html

[mtnester]

4. Shoot, overlooked "impeach"

add it to my answer.

:)

However, it appears that in order to impeach ANYONE from this administration (even appointees down the road) would require that person kill and cook a live infant on live TV, and then I have my doubts.

[Tyler Durden]

16. Naw.

They'd have to Come Out as GAY, wear a pink TUTU, and get married to Ru Paul on National TV.

Then we got an OUTSIDE CHANCE.

Not that these are enherently BAD THINGS, just remember who we're dealing with here.

[mtnester]

18. I hear you loud and clear

immoral fornicator.

:P

[BlueIris]

26. See, I was so hoping someone would post about that.

You should start a whole thread.

[Montauk6]

5. Til death do us part

[FreedomAngel82]

8. If that is the case

I want a big rock for my finger. Heh heh.

[Jersey Devil]

7. Chief Justice has only 1 vote, same as any other justice

How would that help? As Chief Justice there is administrative power but no more power than any other justice to accept or decide cases.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. What does all that mean?

[Jersey Devil]

12. What is "all that"?

He gets to schedule arguments and decide who writes the majority opinion, though others are free to write their own opinions. Other than that his vote is the same as the votes of the other 8 justices - one vote. These are fiercely independent people whose votes are not going to be swayed just because the chief justice disagrees with them.

[tx_dem41]

10. I believe that the CJ can also assign who writes the opinion (or..

dissent) for the side he/she is siding with. At least, Burger did that on his court.

[Jersey Devil]

14. yes, but anyone can write a concurring or dissenting opinion

I don't think that is a big deal. It would be ludicrous to appoint anyone to write a majority opinion who does not speak for at least most of the majority. So his choices are limited.

[tx_dem41]

20. I agree most of the times....but having read "The Brethren"....

I do believe in some cases it can be a "political" decision depending on how reaching the CJ wants the main decision to go. Concurring opinions are not necessarily the majority decision.

[Jersey Devil]

21. I do not think we are disagreeing

Yes, the majority opinion is usually written by a justice who is most representative of the views of the majority. A concurring opinion is usually written by a justice who agrees with the result but not the reasoning of the rest of the majority, or who agrees with some of the majority views but not all.

All I am saying is that a Chief Justice would be limited in who he could assign a majority opinion to and unless I am wrong they also usually conver among themselves as to who should write the opinion, so the Chief's decision in that regard is not completely his own.

[tx_dem41]

22. I agree that we are not disagreeing :-)

It is a fairly minor point.

[Jersey Devil]

23. LOL, well, yes

and that is how lawyers make a living after all, isn't it?

[tx_dem41]

24. Dang, I wish I was a lawyer....

I love quibbling over minor points. :)

[cascadiance]

17. Well, if Scalia had recused himself as he should have in the 2000 election

vote, since his son was part of Bush's legal team, then Rehnquist's deciding vote on an 8 justice court would have made the difference. With a Democrat in charge, the vote would have gone the other way. That is why right now we have in effect a "liberal court" (which is why the Bushies are racing to get Roberts on the court), since Stevens has the deciding vote as acting Chief Justice of an 8 justice court.

[Jersey Devil]

19. if Scalia recused it would have been a 4-4 vote with Fla court upheld

You cannot overrule a lower court decision with a tie vote and the Chief does NOT have any extra vote to break ties. The decision in Bush v Gore was 5-4. Scalia recusing would have made it 4-4, meaning the appeal of the Florida Court would have been affirmed and the votes would have been counted.

[cascadiance]

30. Perhaps in the cases of appeals..., but isn't there some tiebreaking power

if there's a tie vote of justices? I seem to be hearing now that Stevens could be swaying some decisions now in our favor, but I wouldn't doubt that there might be some qualifications or limitations on that power.

[maxrandb]

25. Doesn't the Chief Justice set the agenda?

Kind of like the chairman of congressional committees? Can't the CJ decide what comes before the court in the first place? and if you don't think chairman of congressional committees have some power....

[Jersey Devil]

27. No, Chief Justice does not decide what cases they hear

That is decided by a vote of any 4 justices of the Supreme Court. He may schedule the dates cases are heard but he does not decide what cases are heard or not heard (except to the extent of his own vote).

[maxrandb]

29. OK and Thanks for the answers

so basically, other than getting to wear that cool robe with the three gold stripes on the sleeve, there is not much power in the CJ.

I may have assumed the CJ had more power.

[cascadiance]

28. He would also preside over an impeachment trial in the Senate...

If Bush/Cheney gang were somehow to go before the Senate for impeachment, then whoever the chief justice is would be the judge presiding over it. Could make a big difference if Roberts is in Bush's back pocket!

[cascadiance]

13. I guess one question I would have that is related to this...

If we are fortunate enough to have a deep investigation of the Bushies and these other neo-cons and found evidence of voter fraud, etc. that show that the election was stolen in 2000 and/or 2004, is there a way we could "nullify" some of this administration's actions (if it is found that this administration was put in office by criminal acts). One of those actions of course being the supreme court nominations...

I expect the answer to be "no", but would be nice to have some way to reverse some of the damage of this administration, especially in areas where the damage is permanent, without having to make a constitutional ammendment to do so.

I hate to say this, but if things get really bad and the court were to attract big enough negative reaction from the populace, that might provoke some "enlightened" kook to off one of these justices too, which would also open up a court slot as well, though if that were to happen, I'd hate to see if that might invite a response from the other side to try and off one of the other justices too. That might be another possibility in how a justice might leave office, bad an option as it might be...