Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-337 next last
To: rwfromkansas
We could not counter a fillibuster though, which is why the rules need to be changed.

We could counter a fillibuster if the republicans wouldmake them stick to a true fillibuster. No going home to comfy beds, etc. You can't get anywhere with the current "girlie man" fillibusters!

161 posted on 11/07/2004 4:21:20 PM PST by CAluvdubya (From the RED part of California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I like Scalia but I think I read somewhere that he favored Stare Decisis whereas Thomas is unafraid to try to rectify a bad decision.


162 posted on 11/07/2004 4:21:25 PM PST by Artem55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daler

"...will be obstructed by the Dems..."

The Constitution give the Senate the responsibility of ratifying the President's choices for the Supreme Court or for any Federal Judicial appointment by a majority vote (it takes no more than 51 votes to ratify). The ploy of being able to filibuster any choice and require 60 votes for closure in order to allow a vote in effect violates the Constitutional process by requiring a Super Majority for ratification. It is time for this new Republican Senate leadership, to fix this problem once and for all. We must allow the President to select, and the Senate to vote on the nominees. Anything else is as unconstitutional as gun control or gun confiscation.


163 posted on 11/07/2004 4:22:12 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

As if my spirits couldn't get any higher this week...:)


164 posted on 11/07/2004 4:22:31 PM PST by KerryWillBeCrushed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Sounds like the WH is floating a trial balloon to see what kind of reaction the story gets.
165 posted on 11/07/2004 4:22:54 PM PST by TomGuy (His VN crumbling, he says 'move on'. So now, John Kerry is running on Bob KerrEy's Senate record.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: All

I certainly don't like the O'Conner theory being bantered about. I don't trust people anymore, even ones that are supposed to be on the "right" side. Just about the time Bush would elevate O'Conner for the aforementioned reasons, she would make some ruling to stab him in the back. We can't take the chances.

This is the best shot the Reps have had to put some actual conservatives on the Supreme Court and whatever the tactic, it must not fail and/or come back and bite conservatives in the butt.


166 posted on 11/07/2004 4:24:03 PM PST by Txsleuth (Proud to be a Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: joonbug
The position isn't even available yet.

Rehnquist's form of thyroid cancer turns out to be the worst kind - His time on the court is very limited, I'm afraid. I suspect he will either step down (he was holding on for a Bush reelection and now knows he can let go)- or, sadly, will be gone.

167 posted on 11/07/2004 4:24:17 PM PST by maine-iac7 ( Pray without doubt..."Ask and you SHALL receive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

CWO.
yes you are right..........Thomas is the only one on the court under 65 years old..........this would be great cause he would be chief justice for 20+ years or so.......that would stick it to 'em


168 posted on 11/07/2004 4:24:38 PM PST by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

What's the number?......

Something like only three of the sixteen CJ have been elevated from their position on the court..... Historically they come from off the Supreme Court....


169 posted on 11/07/2004 4:24:43 PM PST by deport (I've done a lot things.... seen a lot of things..... Most of which I don't remember.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley

Anita still struggles with the reality of last Tuesday. Come to think of it, she has trouble with reality period!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/06/questionable_tactics_by_gop/


170 posted on 11/07/2004 4:25:00 PM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #171 Removed by Moderator

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
I agree with you whole-heartedly;

but I'll have to see it to believe it.

172 posted on 11/07/2004 4:25:31 PM PST by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: We Happy Few

It doesn't disqualify him. Neither Earl Warren nor Thurgood Marshall were judges.


173 posted on 11/07/2004 4:25:36 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: NorCalRepub
And I hope all of the President's nominees are young...with long promising lives ahead of them.

When they hold the confirmation hearings they should have the phone numbers for Canada, New Zealand and Australia immigration offices running on a banner at the bottom of the TV screens.

174 posted on 11/07/2004 4:26:42 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

And considering some of the public comments Scalia has made, Thomas exhibits more of the "judicial temperament".

Both would be wonderful...but Thomas would be a brilliant choice!


175 posted on 11/07/2004 4:27:56 PM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
What happens if the RATS keep the nominations of any new justices bottled up? Say Rehnquist retires. Bush appoints Scalia to be Chief and another conservative to replace Scalia. RATS fillibuster. Rehnquist leaves the court leaving only eight justices---with one less conservative.

Seems to me that the Pubbies might decide that the only way out is for a RAT to retire, and Bush strikes a deal to appoint another RAT for that slot in return for a vote on his nominees.

176 posted on 11/07/2004 4:28:18 PM PST by John Thornton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

to Drudge......I doubt it....


177 posted on 11/07/2004 4:28:46 PM PST by Sub-Driver (Unelect All NJ Politicians....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I don't think so, however, he schedules the cases and could schedule what he didn't agree with WAY down the agenda.


178 posted on 11/07/2004 4:29:19 PM PST by momf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
* Antonin Scalia -- too many duck hunting foibles * Sandra Day, et al -- over my dead body

Don't get your knickers in a twist - S. Day O'c is not that well -and has been holding on only in hopes of Bush being reelected - now, I imagine, it wont be long before she retires...wait for the feathers to settle re Rehnquist

179 posted on 11/07/2004 4:29:48 PM PST by maine-iac7 ( Pray without doubt..."Ask and you SHALL receive")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

But what's good about Thomas being Chief Justice, besides being a great jurist, is that he could possibly be there for thirty years!


180 posted on 11/07/2004 4:30:16 PM PST by Freepdonia (Victory is Ours! (I told you so :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson