What difference does it make if Scalia is Chief Justice instead of just

[Pirate Smile]

a Justice?

He is still one vote.

The idea of Stevens dying or getting sick and Bush replacing him is what I worry about.

The idea of O'Connor, the swing 5th vote in the Roe v. Wade decisions, retiring and being replaced by a Bush pick is what I worry about - plus we know she WANTS to retire.

Why would we bother filibustering Scalia moving to Chief instead of saving our fire for a new Justice?

Other then as a title of prestige, what does being Chief Justice really get Scalia?

[No Michael Savage]

1. I agree

The Chief Justice gets only one vote just like the other eight. Instead of worrying about Scalia or Thomas becoming Chief Justice, we need to worry about what will happen if/when one of the liberal or moderate justices leave.

[dogman]

2. He would get to wear the gold chevrons on his robe

when they impeach the next Dem President if there ever is another one.

[MADem]

4. They need to get rid of that stupid outfit

Rhenquist should take it with him when he goes. I swear, he got that braid from a Navy uniform shop...they sell it in rolls!!!

It's the Supreme Court, fachrissake, not the H.M.S. Pinafore!!!

[dogman]

6. Remember the costumes Nixon designed for the WH police.

Same bric-a-brac style. Minor men who would be royalty if their prayers ere answered.

[MADem]

9. They looked like the Pinafore chorus!!!!

I guess these are the signs of a sick empire...everyone trots around looking like they've raided Idi Amin's closet!

I always thought he looked like a doorman at the Ritz, while the Nixon crew looked liked doormen at the Plaza!!!

[MADem]

3. He runs the show

Through administrative means, he can limit the discussion, frame the arguments, assign the majority (if it goes against his ideas) opinion to the worst writer, and leave open the door to another assault on a freedom through convoluted means.

[nankerphelge]

5. It gets him more than you'd think...

the Chief Justice has a lot of administrative power.

[Pirate Smile]

8. I looked it up and this is what I found:

In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties:

- If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice.
- Officiates at the inauguration of the President of the United States.
- Presides when the Senate tries impeachments of the President of the United States.
Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over Presidential impeachments and trials--Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1998 over the proceeding against Bill Clinton.
- Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute.


I don't think it is even a close question - I'd save my fire for a new Justice nominee.

[Sandpiper]

7. None really

The office of Chief Justice is more an office of prestige than one of power.

The CJ presides over the administrative functions of the court, and when voting in the majority, chooses who will write the opinion of the court.

Scalia's already on the court, and becoming CJ doesn't mean he'll get an extra vote.

[MADem]

10. What would happen if he presided over an IMPEACHMENT, though

Think about it....

[Pirate Smile]

11. kick

[JerseygirlCT]

12. The biggest problem (aside from wacko ideology)

for Scalia is that an effective Chief Justice needs to be able to pull the court together. He/She needs to be collegial enough to coax cooperation from all the justices. Scalia would never fit this bill, as Thomas would never. (Goes without saying, I suppose.)

Rehnquist is a right wing nutjob, but he carries enough respect from the other justices, and treats them respectfully enough, that he can make the court work. They don't need to agree, but there needs to be plenty of cooperation in the functioning of the court. And of course, on important matters, NOTHING speaks louder than an unanimous ruling. The weight of those are incomparable. A Scalia would be most unlikely to ever cobble one of those together.

O'Connor would do nicely. As you say, her retirement scares me.