The Other Michael

It is a possibility according to this article.

I'm not sure if he scares me more than Scalia or not.

cheers,
Michael

John Hancock

Had hoped there was a tiny as in small and helpless text option for this statement "I want my mommie"

Martin

paul30

Having to choose between Scalia and Thomas is EXACTLY like having to choose between Hitler and Mussolini.

Aren't there any other options?????



Scalia thinks we are not killing enough people, that capitalism was ordained by God, and that the Constitution should be subordinated to his interpretation of the Bible.

Thomas thinks whatever Rehnquist and Scalia and the others tell him to think.

John Hancock

help

Jimmy Higgins

I'd rather have Scalia, he's older, I believe. That's about the only advantage, he'll be gone sooner. We need a democrat in power again! But then again, maybe we'll get lucky with another Bush appointee like Souter.

hezekiah jones

The CJ doesn't really have any enhanced powers, aside from assigning the authors of majority opinions, and an "enhanced" salary ($186,300 vs. $178,300).

And given Thomas' often bizarre and somewhat crazed views, I don't think the CJ position is going to suddenly render him any more persuasive among his colleagues.

Even so, elevating this bumboy to CJ would make the Court look pretty ridiculous. Maybe the Shrub will make Rehnquist's replacement the CJ. How does Miguel Estrada sound.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
But then again, maybe we'll get lucky with another Bush appointee like Souter.

Yeah really. But I think these characters have learned their lesson with Souter. That's why they're delberately seeking the wackiest right-wingers they can find these days.

Jimmy Higgins

I'm willing to bet Rehnquist isn't replaced. I believe the judge must be approved by the Senate, so that can be stonewalled. Nothing in the Constitution says that there has to be 9 judges. In fact, I think the original had 6 members. Could be one reason why Rehnquist doesn't just step down. It won't be easy by a long shot to replace him with another, younger Rehnquist.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
Nothing in the Constitution says that there has to be 9 judges.

Title 28 calls for nine SC justices, so Congress will have to screw with Title 28 first in order not to replace a retiring justice.

abe smith

It izz the case, as Hezekiah has pointed-out, that the Supremes's CJ does NOT have any legal office-implicit superiority over the remaining (=associate) Justices. Rehnquist,CJ, ordered hisself up a fantsy new robe (w/ I forget? gold stripes on the sleeves); a rather-cheap "distinction without a difference"; and/but it is meaningless. It's pretty-certain that the present AJs are not cowed by Rehnquist's attempt (was it?) to "come the ... " whatever the phrase is. They certainly understand that his vote is of neither-more-nor-less weight than theirs.