Aside from the disrespect shown to the President of the United States as "Bully Boy," these five "students" (and I use the term loosely because they are journalism students) show their lack of understanding of anything remotely Constitutional.
Only in a Bully Boy world could someone who's never served on the Court be considered worthy of not only serving but also presiding over the Court.
I'll dismiss this and move on to answer their "questions."
Are you telling us that of the seven justices currently sitting, and planning to continue sitting on the bench (we're leaving out the eighth who's announced her retirement), that there's not one, with their years of experience, who's actually qualified to be Chief Justice?
Actually, all seven are and I believe everyone could agree on that, but this President is not going to name Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter or Breyer to be Chief Justice on ideological or policy grounds. Same for Kennedy. Justices Scalia and Thomas could do it, but they might have a hard time getting confirmed. Nominations are a political matter, not necessarily one for pure experience.
Second, there is no requirement that the Chief Justice have served on the Supreme court before becoming the Chief. In fact, there are no Constitutional qualifications to be Justice, including no minimum age, education, or even citizenship. So, assuming the President could get them confirmed, a 23 year old, illiterate immigrant from Brazil who speaks no English at all is Constitutionally qualified to be a Justice. But then again, such a person would not be confirmed.
Then there is this little diatribe:
We would assume that a new Justice would need time just to assimilate and grasp the workings involved in the Highest Court of the land. Instead of getting his toe wet, he's diving straight into the deep end. Well, a swimmer can do whatever they choose with their own lives and fate. But we're talking about a Court that is the final say in matters across the nation.
First, as a former Deputy Solicitor General, Judge Roberts has a very good idea of how the Court works and if he didn't, I am sure the other Justices would teach him pretty quick.
Second, as these "students" apparently don't know, the Chief Justice has but one vote in the Court's deliberations. The Chief Justice's duties as Chief are more administrative than anything else; he has no more influence on the Court's docket than any other Justice. According to the Rule of Four, if four Justices decide to hear a case on certiorari, they will hear it. Other cases come to the Court as a matter of Constitutional or statutory directive--a factor Chief Justice Roberts (assuming he is confirmed) has no more control over than any ohter Justice.
Finally, on this score, very rarely does the Court have the final say on anything in the nation. True, they will hear a lot of important cases, but as the debate on abortion and affirmative action shows, questions will continue to arise in many matters.
To be fair, picking on these "students" is all too easy since they put their words out there for comment. But if these students at a journalism program at a college in New York(Columbia?) then one could assume they have a little more background in the nature and structure of our government, not to mention the ability to do a little research before posting such tripe.
I would suppose that if you asked most American college students about the Supreme Court, most would not be able to name more than three or four Justices. Most would not understand the role of the court in American politics nor would they be able to understand how Justices are named. Part of the fault may be in the longevity of the Rehnquist Court since this is the first nomination to the Supreme Court in eleven years, but still. If these "students" are representative of the state of knowledge among journalism students--the media is in even bigger trouble than you might imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment