Though it’s unlikely that President Bush and Karl Rove visit this small corner of the blogosphere, it’s still pleasing to see that they followed my line of reasoning from two days ago, resulting in the President nominating Judge Roberts to succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist instead of Justice O’Connor. One side effect of the President’s change is that Justice O’Connor remains on the court until he nominates a new replacement; she had made her retirement effective on the confirmation of her successor.
The Roberts appointment: The President reads Isaac
Though it’s unlikely that President Bush and Karl Rove visit this small corner of the blogosphere, it’s still pleasing to see that they followed my line of reasoning from two…
Comments
One response
Suppose 5 justices, in a fit, made the same offer that they would step down upon designation of five replacements. Suppose further that in another fit they changed their mind upon the designation and confirmation of 5 replacements.
Intention about a future act is quite a bit different than simply making a decision and moving on.
Suppose that the Public Employees Retirement Board passes a new employee crediting decision in 2004 to substitute for a 1999 crediting decision but that it is to become effective only upon the Supreme Courts’ declaration of the validity of the replacement ruling before it takes effect. Suppose further that the Supreme Court court says instead that a pending case on the crediting is “moot” rather than say boo about the replacement administrative decision.
I would say timing and completeness is important because it is just easier to deal with. Try to explain to folks who have not studied the learned profession of imponderable conundrums that the matter of the new replacement crediting decision is more likely to fail than be sustained?
Back to O’Connor — who would boot her if she did change her mind? I would say no one could, not even fellow justices, and certainly not the President.
Back to the PERB — on September 23rd they wish to say that they are forced by the court to demand the recovery of dollars from retirees as a consequence of an agreement between a collection of governmental entities.