Skip to comments.
BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE
Drudge Report ^
| November 6, 2004
Posted on 11/07/2004 3:42:35 PM PST by RWR8189
Edited on 11/07/2004 4:25:22 PM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 07, 2004 19:02:37 ET XXXXX
BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exclusive**
President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims.
"It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record."
One concern is the amount of political capital Bush would have to spend in congress to make the move.
A chief justice must be separately nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate, even if the person is already sitting on the court.
The need to replace Rehnquist could arise by year's end, Bush aides now believe.
Officially, Bush advisers call any Supreme Court vacancy talk premature.
Developing...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; chiefjustice; clarencethomas; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-337 next last
To: Josh in PA
Question for the moron here.. What extra powers do the Chief Justice have that other justices don't have? The CJ chairs the conferences in which the justices discuss their views on each case (after argument has been heard from the parties), and then he assigns the case to a justice who votes with the majority to write the opinion. Also, of course, he presides whenever the SC is in session and hearing arguments.
101
posted on
11/07/2004 3:58:17 PM PST
by
n-tres-ted
(Remember November!)
To: RWR8189
I remember the Anita Hill fiasco very well. The whole episode caused home shut off of cable TV for years. Rat bastards have no sense of what is right. It would be a thrill to see Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, though I understand the Scalia sentiments. Either one would be great. Bush will do what is RIGHT . . . for a change.
To: small voice in the wilderness
To: SnakeGuy
I actually like Thomas because, at times, he's shown the ability to NOT favor the State.
WHy do people love Scalia when he's never met a decision to expand government and police power that he hasn't liked?
104
posted on
11/07/2004 3:58:48 PM PST
by
Skywalk
(Transdimensional Jihad!)
To: RWR8189
That would just be SO SWEET! Frost the libs' a$$es for sure!
105
posted on
11/07/2004 3:58:54 PM PST
by
SuziQ
(Bush in 2004-Because we are Americans!!!!)
To: SnakeGuy
Yeah I know ,But wouldnt it be fun just to watch them go crazy?
To: sartorius
I think Judge Thomas is great, but I would prefer Scalia to be CHIEF JUSTICE.
107
posted on
11/07/2004 3:59:23 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(Election 2004: This election is for the SOUL OF AMERICA)
To: mhking
Yeah!
To: mhking
I think this is why Specter was talking the way he has.
A lot of Senators are afraid of this pick. This has been rumored for months.
109
posted on
11/07/2004 3:59:43 PM PST
by
lavrenti
(Think of who is pithy, yet so attractive to women.)
To: RWR8189
Thomas would be a great chief justice.
To: RWR8189
Bad move. Why go through the hassle of two confirmations? Just bring someone from the outside. I'd take Kozinski over Thomas in a heartbeat.
111
posted on
11/07/2004 4:00:06 PM PST
by
Sandy
To: orangelobster
But this really isn't news. There are only two current members of the Court who would be conservative picks for Chief: Thomas and Scalia.
112
posted on
11/07/2004 4:00:12 PM PST
by
We Happy Few
("we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother;")
To: SnakeGuy
"I think Scalia is more of a strict constructionist than Thomas . . . ."
Not on Commerce Clause issues, for one. I think Thomas's approach is more traditional than Scalia's; Thomas's opinions would stick out less in, say, the 1920s, than would Scalia's.
"I think they are both great"
I agree wholeheartedly. And for the record, Scalia is by far my favorite Justice, although I think Thomas is a better choice for CJ. Scalia's opinions (and especially his dissents) are a joy to read. If there was any justice in the world, Scalia would get the Nobel Prize for Literature based on his Supreme Court opinions. : )
113
posted on
11/07/2004 4:00:29 PM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: Azzurri
Well, getting Robert Bork there would be even greater, besides being an example of poetic justice.
114
posted on
11/07/2004 4:00:40 PM PST
by
GSlob
To: 26lemoncharlie
Scalia would also be my pick ... but I'll settle for Thomas.
115
posted on
11/07/2004 4:00:57 PM PST
by
CurlyBill
(Voter Fraud is one of the primary campaign strategies of the Democrats!)
To: mhking
I wonder where Ms Rice is now?
116
posted on
11/07/2004 4:01:04 PM PST
by
rocksblues
(No more Kerry, no more polls!)
To: RWR8189
BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE
Yep, I"m sure along with others... that Bush Administration is always leaking this type info...
Drudge and Sunday Night.......
117
posted on
11/07/2004 4:01:10 PM PST
by
deport
(I've done a lot things.... seen a lot of things..... Most of which I don't remember.)
To: 1stFreedom
There is a school of thought that Bush will, in fact, give Queen Sandra the crown and make her the first woman chief justice. In return she will finally, FINALLY step down in 2 years and rid the court of her ignorant decisions. Afterwards, we can appoint Scalia, Thomas, or someone else to fill the gap and free the court from the fascist grasp that is is in today.
To: daler
We have enough new, conservative Repubs to counter the defecting Repubs.
We could not counter a fillibuster though, which is why the rules need to be changed.
119
posted on
11/07/2004 4:02:00 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
To: AuH2ORepublican
I think it makes great sense.Does the same thing to Dems as it did to Daschle.Makes the whole party look like obstructionist. Rush said that "Bush and Rove were going to destroy the Dumocrat party and I think he is right".lol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-337 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson