Redstate

Nobody has yet consulted Senator Chappaquiddick on who he wants for CJ.

Hey, that's my best guess.  So what's missing?

Because I have very well placed sources, too, and they do not agree with your source....But then, maybe the better question is, what branch is your source from?

VirginiaBelle: Love your tagline.  "Northern hospitality and Southern efficiency?"  As a DC resident, I have to agree.  Would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic :)

I suspect that a Governor is a more likely choice than a current Senator, considering the need to keep a check on Democratic shenanigans and some of their sometime allies like the Gang of 14 led by Senator McCain.

Do any right-thinking Governors come to mind?

I like Scalia, but I don't like him as Chief Justice.  The Chief can't take potshots at the Associates all the time and still be an effective leader.  I wouldn't think so, anyway.

Clarence Thomas for Chief!

Rainer Wolfcastle.. er, Arnold Schwarzenegger would work.

I can see Souter hiding under the table already...

The guys over at SCOTUSblog have mentioned a number of times that if there's a promotion from within, a CJ needs to be confirmed before the open seat is filled.  I have not gotten from them an explanation of why, legally, this is, but I suspect that Bush would not want the big prize - confirmation of a new Justice - held up by what is largely a sideshow, the fight over elevating a sitting Justice.

After all, the Chief's only real power on the Court is to assign opinions; that's not nothing but in the grand scheme of things it's not a huge deal.  Otherwise his duties mainly extend to managing the bureacracy of the federal judiciary.  As we saw in 1999, the Chief doesn't even exercise much power when he sits in the Senate for a presidential impeachment.

Anyway, Scalia's my hero, but he's really not the Chief type, and Bush won't elevate Kennedy and shouldn't want to give O'Connor a reason to stay.  That leaves Thomas, who may not want the job enough to sit through more nasty confirmation hearings.  Heck, I'd be willing to trade off giving the Chiefdom to Breyer or Ginsburg if it got us more Associate Justices like Scalia and Thomas.

FWIW, that quote is from President Kennedy.

from a state with a GOP governor would not be a  problem as it woudl be quite unlikely that governor would appoint a Democrat as the senator's replacement.

Here's my guess at the "why" of the CJ being first.

A sitting justice nominated to be Chief Justice would not vacate his seat as an associate justice.  So there wouldn't be a vacancy to fill.  

While the President can make simultaneous nominations (Rehnquist and Scalia) the Chief's vote has to come first.  If Rehnquist had not been confirmed in 1986 the seat Scalia had been nominated for would not be vacant.  Until the Senate confirms the promotion the associate nomination sits.

Actually this worked well in 1986.  Rehnquist being elevated got lots of attention and there wasn't much left over for Scalia.

Scalia as Chief is not worth it - he should keep sniping away from his current seat.  Besides, with O'Connor likely to go he would be behind only Stevens in seniority and would thus be the guy to assign opinions (on either side) in the event he and the new chief are not on the same side (I doubt there will be many a "big case" that find Scalia and Stevens agreeing).  So even the "opinion assignment" function isn't as valuable as it sounds.

Thomas would benefit more from the promotion.  And would his elevation really be the same as his confirmation?  There will be no Anita Hill - and she's been discredited so dredging it up seems pointless.  And he hasn't done anything so disgraceful (to mainstream America) that he would be an "extraordinary circumstance."  And given a fairly solid record (to everybody who isn't a Judiciary Democrat) I don't see how a filibuster would hold without causing resort to the constitutional option, after which, whoever the associate nominee is would cruise through.

At this point, I think it doubtful that a new Chief would be elevated from within, for the same reasons as everybody else: you don't want to give the Dems two bites at the apple.  However, it would certainly be great political theater if Thomas or Scalia were elevated.  Both are tough and brilliant and would not cowtow to Dem's ridiculousness.

A lot of people talk about whether Scalia or Thomas could be enough of a "leader" or "uniter" or "consensus-builder."  Anybody who really follows this stuff should know that is all a smoke screen.  This Court has been together too long for anyone to come in and persuade Ginsburg or Stevens that, oh, whoops, wow the other side is right about all this abortion, affirmative action, Ten Commandments, etc.  All these Justices will continue to vote how they will no matter who becomes Chief, whether from the inside or out.  You want a Chief who will build a consensus among the Justices?  Then get new Justices!