Want to see Republicans really scream? Dump Roberts as Chief Justice

[ThomWV]

When the President makes his pick for the next Supreme Court appointment he should appoint the person to be the Chief Justice. Screw Roberts, dump him. Roberts may be a Supreme Court Justice for life, but I don't recall there being any guarantee he will always be the Chief Justice.

[babylonsister]

1. Could he do that? Do you know if there's precedent? I like it! nt

[ThomWV]

4. I don't know of any reason he couldn't.

[rurallib]

22. nothing about it in the constitution is there?

I have been thinking maybe it was time to try court packing again - in the interest of diversity (eg half women, 20% hispanic etc)

[DainBramaged]

2. Want to see Republicans really scream, make them learn to spell.......

[WeDidIt]

3. No can do. John Roberts is CJ for life

The CJ is appointed for a life term.

[ThomWV]

5. Where's it say so?

[WeDidIt]

11. The Constitution of the United States

Article III, Section 1.

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Roberts can be impeached, he can resign, but if he does neither he is CJ for life.

[ThomWV]

15. That is not what it says at all - there is no mention what so ever of a Chief Justice

He can be a justice for life, but there isn't a word about Chief Justice.

[Hosnon]

18. The position is referenced at least once, when the Constitution states s/he shall

preside over any impeachment trial.

It arguably can be done but probably isn't worth the fight - precisely because it can be done (which means that the title is not that important).

[WeDidIt]

36. HE hold the office of Chief Justice of the United States

There are eight others who hold offices of Associate Justice.

He holds his office during good behaviour.

That's for life unless Congress determines he is not demonstrating good behaviour through the impeachment process.

He's there for life. He can only be removed from the Chief Justice office via impeachment, resignation, or death.

[Historic NY]

40. Hey we could always try the power of prayer like the other side......

:silly:

[Hosnon]

16. I don't think it's very clear. The title/position has little actual importance.

The CJ's greatest power is in choosing who among the majority voters authors the opinion.

[ThomWV]

17. And that power alone can sway a vote

[Hosnon]

19. I agree that it can but am skeptical that it ever has or ever will. nt.

[blogslut]

6. I'm not sure it works like that

I think once the Chief Justice has been confirmed and sworn in, that person is in the position until they retire, pass away or are found guilty via impeachment.

[ThomWV]

10. I'm not either but the Constitution, Article III, is silent on it.

[blogslut]

12. I realize people love to slam the source but

Wikipedia says the position carries Lifetime Tenure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

Tenure

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. However, only one Justice has been impeached by the House (Samuel Chase, in 1805) and he was acquitted in the Senate. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they have not reached a vote in the House. No mechanism presently exists for removing a Justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.<82>

Because Justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William H. Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the departures of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (by death and retirement, respectively) in 2005 and 2006.

Despite the variability, all but four Presidents up to and including Barack Obama have been able to appoint at least one Justice. President William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. President Zachary Taylor likewise died early in his presidential term, although his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. President Andrew Johnson was denied the opportunity to appoint a Justice by a contraction in the size of the Court (see Size of the Court above). President Jimmy Carter is the only President who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency...

[ThomWV]

20. your citation doesn't say a word about the Chief Justice

and besides that, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything at all.

[blogslut]

28. Okay

I completely disagree with your assessment of Wikipedia but that is not the topic of this post.

Go ahead and start the campaign to have Obama replace Roberts as Chief Justice.

No skin off my nose.

[Hosnon]

21. Removing him as Chief Justice wouldn't remove him from the bench. nt.

[WeDidIt]

13. Article III is very clear on it

He holds his position duing good behavior.

To get him out of the CJ office, you have to impeach him.

Good luck with that.

[ThomWV]

23. nonsense - nowhere does it mention the position of Chief Justice and beyond that ....

You may notice that unlike the Congress, the Court is not afforded the luxury of making its own rules.

[Hosnon]

26. It's anything but clear either way, I agree. And didn't the Court rule that it has the

inherent authority to make its own rules?

[WeDidIt]

37. Chief Justice is his OFFICE

You're being purposefully obtuse just because the constitution proves you WRONG!

[MyNameGoesHere]

7. I think the position of Chief Justice

term is till resignation, death or assassination. although isn't death and assassination pretty much the same thing? Messing with the Supreme court could cause blow back. Even FDR couldn't do it because of the negative response that could have happened.

[Greybnk48]

8. Can the President do that? I don't know very much about the Supreme

Court (shame on me), but I guess I assumed that once that title was bestowed, that was for life as well. I must say that would be sweet, especially after the embarrassing SOTU incident with Roberts.

[WeDidIt]

14. Only the Congress can remove him

He has to be impeached by a majority of the House and convicted by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

That's the only way to remove him from his office.

[droidamus2]

29. Missing the point

Of course any justice can only be removed by impeachment that is a Constitutional fact. The point is
'Chief Justice' is not a Constitutional position or title (maybe some better scholars can correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, the President could not remove him from the Supreme Court but technically
could name some other justice as the 'Chief Justice'. The other ideas presented in this thread such as
'does the court make it's own rules' (if so why don't they appoint the Chief Justice?), is it politically
possible (probably a bad idea unfortunately) are valid and probably why it has never been tried.

[WeDidIt]

43. Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 of the United States Constitution

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Chief Justice is the ONLY judicial office specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution. All other judicial offices are created via the legislative process.

[MattBaggins]

30. Not saying remove him from office

Demote him to plain old justice and assign someone else as chief justice.

It is silly and Obama would never try something so stupid; but the Constitution protects him as a justice, but not as chief justice.

[WeDidIt]

42. His office is CHIEF JUSTICE, not Associate Justice

And Chief Justice is most certainly a constitutional office:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3. paragraph 6.

If you want to remove him from his office, you must impeach him from his office. there is no other way.

[MattBaggins]

44. It does not declare him specifically Chief Justice

That section does not say how the Chief Justice is chosen nor does section two mention how the Chief Justice is to be chosen. It doesn't even mention the office which was clearly an over sight.

Look I think it is a stupid suggestion and would be a slap in the face to two hundred years of precedent; but the Constitution was badly written in this case. Obama would never be stupid enough to try it, but the President could get up each morning, flip a coin and declare a new Chief Justice.

[WeDidIt]

45. You're leaving out Article II, Section2, Paragraph 2, too

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

It's all very clear.

[MattBaggins]

47. Yup it's very clear

The President has the authority to appoint a Chief Justice and ask Congress to approve it. Stupid move though.

[WeDidIt]

50. But there's already a Chief Justice

and that Chief Justice holds that office under good behavior.

So until the office is vacated by resignation, impeachment, or death, Obama can't appoint anybody to the office.

[MattBaggins]

53. No he just hold the office of a Justice on good behavior.

Some one down thread has stated that there is an Act of Congress passed after the ratification of the Constitution that sets the Chief Justice as a separate Office.

[WeDidIt]

55. Wrongo, junior, there is one CJ and 8 Associate Justices n/t

[joeybee12]

9. No can do. Hell, just out the guy...

That'll make their heads explode.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Yes, I loved how he formed "an instant family" ... complete with perfectly matched adopted kids. eom

[madinmaryland]

27. Easy, joey. Sounds like you've been drinking too much of that red sox kool-aid!

Four games lost to the Tampa Bay Rays???

:D

[hunter]

35. Out him? I think everyone knows Roberts is a chicken molestor.

:yoiks:

[Deep13]

25. Well, Bush never let legal reality stop him!

:woohoo:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

31. There sure doesn't seem to be anything specific blocking a demotion to regular supreme ct justice.

[Gaedel]

32. The only thing that I see

is the mention in the impeachment articles that the "Chief Justice" shall preside which implies that one of the justices is "Chief" and the provision that the judges hold their "offices" till resignation, death, or impeachment. You certainly get the implication that one of the "offices" is "chief" and that once appointed to and confirmed in that "office", he is permanent.

Just like Supreme Court "packing" and impeachment for political reasons, I am not sure we want to get into the idea that the position of Chief Justice will be subject to the whim of the current president.

[jeepnstein]

33. Impossibly dumb political move.

It would guarantee the complete and total meltdown of any kind of civil political discourse that might still exist in this great nation of ours. You can rest assured that the Supreme Court would take a very dim view of it. There's no way such a nomination would ever make it through the Senate no matter who was in the majority.

[Uzybone]

34. More and more ridiculous ideas sprout up in this place every day

you are right.

[WeDidIt]

38. Unconstitutional ridiculous ideas at that!

The Constitution specifically states he holds his office during good behaviour.

[cali]

39. no kidding.

oh well, stupid is as stupid does. this will happen at approximately the same time as Obama being removed from office for being born in Kenya.

[DefenseLawyer]

52. It can't be done

Although your reasoning as nothing to do with it. Actually the current majority on the Court has shown little regard for comity or precedent. My guess is that if there was a liberal CJ Fat Tony and the boys would be all for replacing him or her with one of their own. And you are wrong on another count as well. If it could be done and the Republicans were in the majority, they would replace a liberal CJ before you could say Dred Scott. You have apparently been in a coma for 20 or 30 years.

[sl8]

41. "Choosing a Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative or a Job for the Court?"

You might find this article interesting:

Choosing a Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative or a Job for the Court?
http://works.bepress.com/todd_pettys/8/

[Statistical]

46. You mean dump the Constitution? n/t

[onenote]

48. he is Chief Justice for life per act of Congress

Congress, in one of its first acts after the ratification of the Constitution, passed legislation regarding the Supreme COurt and the Justices. The CJ is a separate office from the other 8 "associate" justices. When you are confirmed as CJ its for life. THat's why whenever a sitting associate justice is elevated to become CJ they have to be re-confirmed by the Senate -- its a different office.

[MattBaggins]

49. What act is this?

That would be the source of why they do it that way since the Constitution isn't actually all that clear on the matter.

[WeDidIt]

54. Title 28, Chapter 1 of the United States Code spells it all out

Article 3 of the constitution specifies that any court appointments serve under good behavior, which means they serve so long as they are not impeached by the House and covicted by the Senate as defined under Article 1 of the constitution.

Everything else is in Title 28, Chapter 1 of the United States Code

Oh, and specifically, there is one chief justice and 8 associate justices defined under Title 28, Chapter 1, § 1 of the United States Code

[MattBaggins]

56. Well that states it.

The Chief Justice is a separate office.

Unless it were challenged and the Supreme Court would have to decide the constitutionality of Title 28.

I'm kidding...

[tritsofme]

51. Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice, that is his position. He would have to be reconfirmed

as an associate justice in order to hold that position. Sort of like Rehnquist's 1986 promotion in reverse. He cannot be selectively "demoted" to a position he has not won Senate confirmation to.

There really isn't any ambiguity here at all, this can't be done without Roberts as a volunteer. And that seems a bit unlikely to me.

[NYC Liberal]

57. There may be an argument to be made that Congress can regulate this

The constitution only mentions the Chief Justice position in passing and doesn't specifically say anything about it as a separate office. However, the Constituion does let Congress determine the court's jurisdiction, size, etc. Presumably Congress can set up a formal procuedure to choose a Chief Justice if they haven't already, or change it if they have.

[struggle4progress]

58. In practice, of course, Congress and the President can do what they want in this regard; but

in reality it would be a messy stinking political fight, at least as noisy as an impeachment, conducted along the battle-lines indicated upthread. It's not worth it: we don't want to go through this every time the White House changes hands