Luigi Daniele wrote:
It is a true shame that a President can't choose who is Chief Justice (ie, the person that replaces a CJ is automatically a CJ).
Scalia should be CJ.
Luigi, it's to maintain the Separation of Powers.
Each of the three branches has defined powers so that no branch can ride roughshod over the branches. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
If the president could choose which justice were to serve as the Chief Justice, every time there was a change of administration, there would be a battle.
The judicial branch would be under the control of executive branch rather than serving as a check and balance, a duty that the constitution mandates for the three branches of federal government.Chief Justice of the US
… like the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice serves until retirement, death or impeachment.
If President Obama could select who was the Chief Justice, I very much doubt that he would have allowed John Roberts to remain in the position.
I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.