Whoa, whoa, whoa...

[jianantonic]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html
I was just on my way out when I saw this.

If O'Connor's resignation was the answer to Pat Robertson's prayers, what will he have to say to God for this?

EDIT:
Normally, I love CNN, but sometimes, they're a bunch of morons. From their poll this morning:
QUICKVOTE
Should President Bush nominate a current Supreme Court jurist for chief justice or pick someone new?
Yes
No

Comments

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

I say, give the chief justice job to someone who actually has experience being on the Supreme Court.

Although the Chief Justice job doesn't really have all that much power, does it? All it is is status--which is power in its own right, but not necessarily the kind we should fear.

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

oh, haha, I didn't even look at the fact that the choices were "yes" and "no." What a bunch of morons, indeed.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

The CJ is largely influencial in determining which cases to accept, presides over impeachments, and assigns the writing of the majority decisions. Therefore, it is quite powerful.

[pwylltwiceborn.livejournal.com]

the CJ only assigns writing majority decisions when he's in the majority.

The CJ isn't significantly more important than other justices (see "rule of four"--if four justices want it, it's in).

It is a prestige job. There is the impeachment angle. There is, with the prestige, the ability to sway other justices to vote to pick up the case. I'm not sure who's in charge of scheduling (which can be big, too). I am, however, with Emily--give it to someone with experience. (and, yes, the yes-no answer set is retarded)

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

I agree with giving it to someone already in. C'mon, Stevens...(in my dreams)