[DeepSpace9er]

he was still far more "moderate" than people expected.

Theres the whole root of the problem.. how can you be moderate when it comes to judicial review? Either its a personal policy preference or its the interpretation of the constitution.

[Bobboau]

and I assume you mean dissagreeing or agreeing with you respectively.

[redmenace]

would you guys rather have scalia or thomas nominated to cheif justice.

[Rictor]

Can a Prez promote existing justices or does he have to appoint a new one to the post? But yeah, better than Scalia.

[Mongoose]

Apparently, the problem with appointing an existing justice is that you have to re-nominate them, which basically leads to two sets of hearings for what is essentially one vacancy.  Since that could get messy, presidents often just choose a new justice as chief justice, as in this case.

(As a side note, I don't see what anyone has against Scalia.  He bases his decisions off what the Constitution says.  Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that what a justice is supposed to do?)

[Rictor]

That's what everyone says, though of course it's quite subjective. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than myself to argue against him, but I'm pretty sure that the Constitution makes no mention of marriage being a man-woman thing (though I do admit it would have been so implicit at the time as to not be worth mentioning) nor does it allow habeas corpus to be suspended at will.

[aldo_14]

There's my iterpretation, and his interpretation, and then your interpretation.........