A *technical* possibility for the new opening in the S.C.

[2Xtreme21]

My buddies and I were talking tonight about the opening in the S.C. due to Rehnquist's passing, and we jokingly figured that it really wouldn't alter the balance if Bush were to put an ultra conservative on the court (replace one con. with another); however, what if, for some reason, Bush were to leave the spot open until '07 and then nominate himself for the open position?

Now putting all the Senate and bar judge blocks aside, would it technically be possible? I was searching around in the Constitution and I don't think anywhere it says that an executive is unable to appoint himself to the court (or any position for that matter). I know William Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court after his Presidency, though it wasn't himself who appointed him.

God, wouldn't that be chaos...

 

[Taggart]

No, his base will definetely want a replacement ASAP

 

[yankeesfan]

Well, considering the fact that he not a lawyer, I don't know how that would work...

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Well, considering the fact that he not a lawyer, I don't know how that would work...

non-lawyers have been SCOTUS judges I think.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
My buddies and I were talking tonight about the opening in the S.C. due to Rehnquist's passing, and we jokingly figured that it really wouldn't alter the balance if Bush were to put an ultra conservative on the court (replace one con. with another); however, what if, for some reason, Bush were to leave the spot open until '07 and then nominate himself for the open position?

Now putting all the Senate and bar judge blocks aside, would it technically be possible? I was searching around in the Constitution and I don't think anywhere it says that an executive is unable to appoint himself to the court (or any position for that matter). I know William Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court after his Presidency, though it wasn't himself who appointed him.

God, wouldn't that be chaos...

Y'know, he really wouldn't want the job. Why would he? He has a ranch and Presidential retirement. He is not as crazy as you would like to think.

 

[Taggart]

I think GWB might try to become the permanent commissioner of baseball.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Well, considering the fact that he not a lawyer, I don't know how that would work...

non-lawyers have been SCOTUS judges I think.

There is no requirement to be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court...and some justices have not been lawyers on the SCOTUS

 

[glugglug]

Is there anything in the constitution that prevents him from serving on the court DURING his term as president? Aside from the fact that any sane legislator would block iit, I don't think that it is!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Is there anything in the constitution that prevents him from serving on the court DURING his term as president? Aside from the fact that any sane legislator would block iit, I don't think that it is!

He would have to resign as president, and recuse himself from most if not all cases regarding his administration.

 

[arsbanned]

Why? Those little details never seem to bother him. He has Texas sized ambition! :disgust:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Why? Those little details never seem to bother him. He has Texas sized ambition! :disgust:

Did you really mean ambition or are you suffering severe penis envy? Maybe that is why he can do no good in the eyes of liberals.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Why? Those little details never seem to bother him. He has Texas sized ambition! :disgust:

Did you really mean ambition or are you suffering severe penis envy? Maybe that is why he can do no good in the eyes of liberals.

Seriously. He just gift wrapped a nice package in one of the strongest uniting bipartisan moves of his presidency.

Rehnquist's death was really terrible timing.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Sorry for bumping my own thread this late, but I just found an interesting tidbit: Apparently you can hold an executive position and be on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall did it back in 1801. Link.

Appointed Chief Justice on January 20, 1801, Marshall continued to serve as Secretary of State until the end of Adams' administration March 4, 1801.

So... Bush on the SCOTUS anyone?

 

[Harvey]

Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

<------ Somebody did, but it wasn't this "we".

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

Exactly. And just because you didn't vote for him does not somehow magically exonerate you from blame for his position of power. If anything, Kerry voters are probably *more* to blame, as they felt Bush wasn't the right man for the job, yet didn't care enough to even put up a semi-decent candidate that could garner support.

"Oh, a turd could beat GWB."

And that's exactly what the Dems put up against him - a turd. And while it was an admittedly close race, in the end, it still couldn't top the colossal mediocrity that is Bush. Nice job!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

Exactly. And just because you didn't vote for him does not somehow magically exonerate you from blame for his position of power. If anything, Kerry voters are probably *more* to blame, as they felt Bush wasn't the right man for the job, yet didn't care enough to even put up a semi-decent candidate that could garner support.

"Oh, a turd could beat GWB."

And that's exactly what the Dems put up against him - a turd. And while it was an admittedly close race, in the end, it still couldn't top the colossal mediocrity that is Bush. Nice job!

And if I didn't vote for Bush for President and didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries...then what?


You're right though, Kerry was about as piss poor candidate that you could get. He was indeed a turd!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Engineer

And if I didn't vote for Bush for President and didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries...then what?


You're right though, Kerry was about as piss poor candidate that you could get. He was indeed a turd!

There you're in the same category as me. We should have tried harder!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

Exactly. And just because you didn't vote for him does not somehow magically exonerate you from blame for his position of power.If anything, Kerry voters are probably *more* to blame, as they felt Bush wasn't the right man for the job, yet didn't care enough to even put up a semi-decent candidate that could garner support.

"Oh, a turd could beat GWB."

Huh? That doesn't make any sense what so ever, espically the democrats who live in red states.

And that's exactly what the Dems put up against him - a turd. And while it was an admittedly close race, in the end, it still couldn't top the colossal mediocrity that is Bush. Nice job!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bush is an inarticulate, functionally illiterate buffoon. Nobody's would approve him for the job.

We did. Twice.

Exactly. And just because you didn't vote for him does not somehow magically exonerate you from blame for his position of power.If anything, Kerry voters are probably *more* to blame, as they felt Bush wasn't the right man for the job, yet didn't care enough to even put up a semi-decent candidate that could garner support.

"Oh, a turd could beat GWB."

Huh? That doesn't make any sense what so ever, espically the democrats who live in red states.

And that's exactly what the Dems put up against him - a turd. And while it was an admittedly close race, in the end, it still couldn't top the colossal mediocrity that is Bush. Nice job!

I thought you were quoting me for truth, until I saw your oddly-placed comment.

What don't you believe to make sense? That all voters are responsible for the current President, not just the ones who voted for him? It's all too easy to simply say "Oh well. I didn't vote for him."

 

[nageov3t]

the only requirement to being on the supreme court that I know of is being an American citizen and being approved by congress.

but you cannot serve in two branches of the government at once.

a person couldn't, for example, be majority leader of the senate, president, and chief justice of the supreme court simultaneously.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Loki, where does it say that, though? I don't think it says it anywhere. I cited an example earlier where John Marshall was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice. (Link).

And cK, are you saying that Bush is a piss-poor person? Because it seems like you're just capping on the Democrats for not being able to best Bush..

 

[sandorski]

Maybe he'll delay the appointment until 2008. Then, just before he does his final Presidential Pardons, announces himself as the candidate.

Won't happen, but I'd love to see him try. It would make for some Political Entertainment!

 

[CaptnKirk]

In therory he could appoint himself then resign . . . leving Cheney in charge and use the GOP majority to float his confirmation through.