Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can the next President designate another Justice as the "Chief Justice" of the Court?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:09 AM
Original message
Can the next President designate another Justice as the "Chief Justice" of the Court?
It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth to call Roberts the Chief Justice of the United States. Can the next President re designate someone else to be Chief and relegate Roberts to associate status? I doubt that its real important but still, anything we can do to erase the Bush years is a step in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. Only if he steps down or croaks.
Edited on Sun Jun-01-08 09:13 AM by hobbit709
or is impeached and removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good question ThomWV...
But, traditionally, only when there is a vacancy of the "Chief Justice" is there an appointment of a new Chief Justice. Rehnquist had resigned or had passed away when Roberts was designated. it was unusual in that Scalia or a sitting Justice was not named Chief Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Wasn't he one of the whiners in regards to pay?
maybe the new admin could cut benefits and salary, cause a hardship and the little beady eyed creep would resign?

a girl can dream can't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. Constitution doesn't say, and I believe the appointment is treated like any other, which means it
ends like others -- when a justice dies in office, chooses to retire, or is impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. As far as I know though, there is nothing to say that they couldn't increase....
the number of Justices from the current 9 to say 11 though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. FDR threatened that. There was a lot of back blow. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridablue Donating Member (996 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Congress can do that with a constitutional change but
FDR proved that they won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. No, it's not a constitutional change
it's a legislative change. Congress can't change the constitution on its own, anyway.

As to the OP's question, the answer is no. Roberts will serve as long he wants, provided he's not impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Make it thirteen, not nine or eleven...
Don't think Senators Obama and Clinton aren't already talking to those in Congress who would have to beef up the Supreme Court...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not gona happen.
We're stuck with dat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. Can all judicial appointments since Junta Day, 2000.12.12, be reviewed?
Given we know Florida 2000 was stolen, would a judicial finding to that effect impact all Bush appointments to any courts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montanacowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. If it could be proven that the 2000 election was illegal
and fradulent, then everything coming from that poison tree would be thrown out?

just like an illegal search, everything confiscated from it becomes moot, therefore, fruit of the poisoned tree

Just a thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The 2000 election occurred when the Electoral College voted
That's the real presidential election, and the EC vote was legal and binding. What happened when the people voted is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Nope
Bush was legally elected President - by the electoral college, and the results certified by the congress. There's no "undoing" his presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Who would throw it out? The Supreme Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. the only way to remove a Justice is impeachment.
and it won't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. But they have the lowest burden of impeachment. They don't even have to commit a crime.
They can be removed simply for bad behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Oh I'm sure they could be removed for bad breath if congress wanted to
but it isn't going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. Nope. We're stuck with him.
We just need to be sure that the next people who step down are replaced by a Democrat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. We sould get used to the fact that it will take 50-100 yrs to repair the damage Bush has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. I think the Constitution says "during good behavior".
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC