@import url("http://www.blogger.com/css/blog_controls.css"); @import url("http://www.blogger.com/dyn-css/authorization.css?blogID=3152270"); @import url(http://www.blogger.com/css/navbar/main.css); @import url(http://www.blogger.com/css/navbar/4.css); Notify Blogger about objectionable content.
What does this mean? BlogThis! The Buck Stops Here Monday, September 05, 2005 Roberts as Chief Why couldn't Roberts still be viewed as being O'Connor's replacement? In other words, why can't it be the case that (1) O'Connor's replacement will be the new Chief; and (2) Rehnquist's replacement (whenever that occurs) will be an Associate Justice? Who says that can't happen?
After all, we have all been assuming that naming a "Chief" is separable from naming a "Justice." Everyone seems to agree that Bush could at present name Scalia to be Chief, name one nominee to fill Rehnquist's spot, and another nominee to fill O'Connor's spot. But were that the case, it is not as if Scalia would have filled Rehnquist's spot as a Justice . That vacancy would still be open.
Doesn't this then mean, logically, that even though Roberts is being named "Chief" as well as a "Justice," he is not necessarily "replacing Rehnquist"? Instead, he could be viewed as "replacing O'Connor and at the same time being named Chief." | |
|
