Catholic Online Forum

Although I acknowledge it, I did not celebrate nor view the inauguration; however, news of the event was hard to avoid. I must admit, when I first caught wind of this 'weird' hat that the media was discussing and many on the left ridiculed I knew exactly the message that Justice Scalia was conveying -a message in my opinion, that eludes many and I suspect that many on the left will never grasp even if hit over the head with it.

Scalia Wears Martyr’s Cap to Inauguration

-excerpt:

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

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.

_________________
-Lou (Louis)

ORA et LABORA
Totus Tuus
Cacciatore/Fungaiolo

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

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.

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

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.

I think that when the CJ retires the President can nominate one of the other justices to be CJ and nominate a new Associate Justice. Both must then be approved by the Senate before taking office.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

Joe,

Correct. It has happened three times: Edward Douglass White in 1910, Harlan Fiske Stone in 1941, and William Rehnquist in 1986.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

That, of course, is true, Joe. The president can nominate any qualified person from within or without the USSC when a Chief Justice dies, retires or is impeached — but he can't replace a sitting justice. They serve for life unless they voluntarily retire or are impeached.

Perhaps I misunderstood Luigi's lament. I took him to be expressing disappointment that a president couldn't remove the sitting Chief Justice and replace him with one the president prefers.

Hence my explanation that would be a violation of the separation of powers rule.

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

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.