<p>He's trying to have his cake and eat it too... he's getting greedy.</p>
<p>Although I voted for Bush and I am for Roberts, I would be insulted (the two other justices that were expected to be nominated).</p>
<p>Perhaps, perhaps. Does it seem at all risky that Bush nominated Roberts although he has given few (if any?) opinions on supreme court cases?</p>
<p>The office of Chief Justice has a few administrative tasks associated with it; they also get to assign the writing of the majority opinion to one of the justices who are in the majority. For the most part, the first justice can be considered "first amont equals."</p>
<p>I wouldn't take it personally, if I were a Supreme Court justice. Bush is trying to avoid having an extended period of an 8-justice court, with the possibility of 4-4 ties. Moreover, Scalia or Thomas (Bush's favorite sitting justices) would encounter a lot of resistance in the Senate if Bush were to try to elevate them to Chief Justice.</p>
<p>My list of complaints about Bush is extremely long, with lots of bold faced type, and triple underlining, but this isn't on it. My guess is that Roberts is about as good a candidate as anyone I could imagine Bush nominating.</p>