Serving Process on the Chief Justice at His Home:
The BLT has the scoop.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
Serving Process on the Chief Justice at His Home:
The BLT has the scoop.
|
ContactJohn Elwood CategoriesSubscribeArchives
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates In Search of Jefferson's Moose Sources on the Second Amendment Blogroll |
If the president wants to say the words, it's hard for me to understand how Newdow, or SCOTUS, could prevent him from doing so. Can they also keep him from going to church on Sunday? After all, he would be driving in a government-supplied automobile.
Did I just feed a troll? Sorry!
OK, Newdow. Back under your bridge.
I never understood how he Got "Chief" Justice, since he does not have seniority, and "Chief" usually refers to the Justice all others followed. (in obtaining a seat on the Supreme Court.) It would likely be a conflict of interest in any impeachments of the President responsible for appointing him. Logic, it works in mysterious ways.
Your second paragraph is literally incomprehensible.
Trolling long? The position of Chief Justice of the United States is created by 28 U.S.C. 1. Vacancies in the office of Chief Justice are covered by 28 U.S.C. 3. And if the Chief Justice is unable to act, the next most senior Justice acts in his place.
I am not sure why a Chief Justice would have a conflict in presiding over an impeachment of the President who appointed him. Warren Burger reportedly had no such qualms.
Of course, in the two actual Presidential impeachments, Chief Justice Salmon Chase (appointed by Abraham Lincoln) presided over Andrew Johnson's imeachment trial and Chief William Rehnquist presided over Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.
Hardly proper for a new Supreme Court Justice to become Chief Justice of the highest Court over the experienced Justices. A leader should earn his rank, not have it granted to him like Nobility.
Roberts didn't "assume" the title. He was nominated for it by the President and confirmed for it by the Senate.
This is, surprisingly, an American legend. Historians are not sure when the practice developed, although (again surprisingly) it might have been Lincoln.
Of course, every President since FDR has definitely said it.
Sounds like there was no complaint from Portnoy.
Seriously... I know CJ Roberts isn't into the trappings of the positions, etc., but isn't it just a little worrisome that somebody can go right up to his front door and he comes out?
I wonder if the story was condensed a little... maybe the guy did actually have to talk to/get past the security detail first. Though the story suggests he went straight up to the door, which is concerning.
I assumed Tritium was trolling Congress' decision to permit such a thing. They could change the process so that only sitting Justices can be elevated to CJ.
Of 17 Chief Justices, apparently 13 first joined the Supreme Court as Chief Justice:
John Jay
Oliver Ellsworth
John Marshall
Roger B. Taney
Salmon P. Chase
Morrison Waite
Melville Fuller
William H. Taft
Charles E. Hughes
Frederick M. Vinson
Earl Warren
Warren E. Burger
John Roberts
Charles Evans Hughes was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court before he was appointed CJ. He left the Court in 1916 to run for President. He lost by a slim margin to Wilson. Hoover appointed him Chief Justice some years later.
And, of course, Roberts was first nominated as an Associate Justice to replace O'Connor, but was then renominated for CJ when Rehnquist died before Roberts was confirmed as an Associate Justice.
Also, Dave N, doesn't the Impeachment Clause of Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 of the Constitution create the office of Chief Justice?
It's still a silly lawsuit, however.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.