I just had a thought: John Roberts, as Chief Justice, could swear in Bobby McAllister to the presidency in 2041, when Roberts is 85.
I mean, y’know, if TV shows were real.
Tag Archives: roberts
Roberts as Chief
There’s been way too much news this past week. Between Katrina and Rehnquist/Roberts, I can’t read the newspapers and blogs fast enough. And I’m pissed that The Note has been on vacation for two and a half weeks. Mark Halperin and his staff will have a lot of catching up to do when they return tomorrow.
It’s not totally suprising that Bush has moved Roberts’s nomination to the Chief Justice position. He’s practically in love with Roberts, and he wasn’t going to name someone who wasn’t a white male as Chief Justice, but he wasn’t going to nominate a white male for the second vacancy. So O’Connor’s replacement will probably be someone non-white or female or both.
On the other hand, Bush has never acted in line with political predictions.
Interesting fact: since Roberts is only 55 only 50 years old, he could wind up having one of the longest Chief Justiceships in American history, second only to that of John Marshall. [Update: or even the longest!]
The switch of Roberts to the Chief Justice’s seat changes the dynamics of Bush’s two appointments. As SCOTUSblog writes, “The nomination of a doctrinaire conservative to replace the Chief Justice could have been explained as ideologically neutral for the Court, as the new nominee would not move that seat to the right. Moving Judge Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice, by contrast, opens up again the debate over what Democrats will describe as the ‘O’Connor’ seat — that of a moderate conservative.”
There’s going to be pressure (again) to replace O’Connor with a moderate. But hasn’t that ship sailed? What if Roberts actually turns out to be the moderate of the two appointments? Ugh. It’s still possible.
At any rate, here’s hoping that Chief Justice Roberts will be presiding over Bush’s impeachment trial soon.
Roberts and Romer
I’m very intrigued by the news about Judge Roberts and Romer v. Evans. My initial cautious admiration had been turning into worriment in the last couple of weeks, with all the news about his cocky Reagan-era views, but this reassures me a bit. It doesn’t mean a whole lot – again, whom you represent or advise as a lawyer doesn’t necessarily say anything about your own views. But I can’t imagine that Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas would have volunteered, pro bono, to help out the gays.
On the other hand, the issue in Romer v. Evans was pretty egregious. It involved the following amendment to the Colorado constitution:
“Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”
In short, the amendment (which passed) legalized all types of discrimination against gays and lesbians – in employment, in housing, in whatever. Opposition to that amendment wouldn’t necessarily translate to sympathy for gay marriage or other gay-rights issues. As Arthur Leonard says in the linked article above, “There is certainly a difference between striking down laws that impose second-class citizenship on a class of people and supporting more affirmative rights for such people, and I don’t think a judge’s position on one necessary predicts his position on the other.” (It could be argued, of course, that same-sex marriage bans impose second-class citizenship on a class of people, but I know what he’s getting at.)
So like everything else that has been uncovered thus far, it doesn’t say much about Roberts other than that he’s not a Scalia or Thomas. Well, it also says he might not be a Rehnquist.
But also, Roberts, at age 50, would be the youngest member of the current Court by seven years. (Thomas is 57.) Scalia will be 70 next year. While age does not predict attitude, someone born in 1955 will have grown up in a different cultural context than someone born in 1936. Judge Roberts was 14 at the time of the Stonewall riots, for instance. Not that that necessarily means anything, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Anyway, this whole thing is intriguing. I guess we’ll see what it means.