Chief Justice Roberts

Chris asked for it, so he gets it: my reaction to Pres. Bush deciding to put John Roberts up to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist instead of Justice O'Connor.

First, I think this is a matter of expediency. Roberts is at the eve of his Senate hearings, the workup has been done and there is a gap in leadership in the Court, so Bush wants to fill that space first, then worry about what to do next. The nomination also stops the O'Connor for Chief nonsense in its tracks. Plus, the fact that Roberts is likely to sail through confirmation (to the extent that any Republican nominee can) is crucial -- there is symbolic importance to the Chief Justice post that outweighs the actual influence that the position affords.

Second, the main responsibility for the Chief Justice is assigning opinions and the likelihood is that the President doesn't want that responsibility to fall into Justice Stevens' hands for whatever short period he'd have it (as the senior Associate Justice).

Third, the Chief Justice appointee draws more fire -- that's why the Reagan White House miscalculated by sending Scalia up at the same time as Rehnquist's Chief Justice nomination instead of Bork. Bork would have flown under the radar, Scalia was a dead-bang conservative but the nomination process was MUCH less poisonous in the 1980s, therefore he would have skated in easily even on a lone nomination (he passed without opposition as a nominee for Rehnquist's seat). This allows Pres. Bush to potentially send up a more controversial nominee for O'Connor's seat. My choice is still Emilio Garza if Bush is counting on nominating the first Latino justice.