BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE

Drudge Report ^ | November 6, 2004

[RWR8189]

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...

[mrsmith]

Sorry, I've no idea.

Thomas would be a great choice, but it does mean two fights to replace the Chief Justice which is why it's usually not done I assume.

[TeleStraightShooter]

I digress
May I refer you to the opinion Scalia wrote in June 2001 that extended the need for a search warrant to anything in the future yet to be invented.

The case arose from the question of if law enforcement required a search warrant to use a laser to remotely measure the fluxuantions of a window pane (a laser listening device).

[dufekin]

Justice Clarence Thomas is by far the youngest member of the Court. If the Chief Justice is to be a Justice already seated on the Supreme Court, Thomas is the only viable option who will survive to adjudicate over posterity.

[Sola Veritas]

"WHy do people love Scalia when he's never met a decision to expand government and police power that he hasn't liked?"

That is the one drawback to Scalia and Thomas. I would think that a "strict constructionist" would not allow "no knock" (AKA Kick-In) warrants. To me they appear to violate the original intent of the 4th Ammendment. Both Scalia and Thomas have let that nonsense stand.

In my way of thinking, "strict construction" means you neither add rights that are not clearly articulated or implied (i.e. right to abort), nor take away or lessen "rights" clearly articulated or implied by the constitution (i.e. the 4th ammendment) as intended by the Founding Fathers. I think the founders would freak over the court having said that abortion was a constitutional right. However, I also think they would freak over "no knock" warrants - that is exactly what the British did during colonial days.

[Sandy]

Something like only three of the sixteen CJ have been elevated from their position on the court.

That's right. Taft elevated Justice White, FDR elevated Justice Stone, and now there's Rehnquist.

[deport]

Note: White, Stone and Rehnquist are the only three to have been elevated to Chief Justice from the Associate Justice Position.......

List of Chief Justices of the United States

No.	Chief Justice	Years of Service	Appointed by President
1	John Jay	1789-1795	George Washington
2	John Rutledge	1795	George Washington
3	Oliver Ellsworth	1796-1800	George Washington
4	John Marshall	1801-1835	John Adams
5	Roger Brooke Taney	1836-1864	Andrew Jackson
6	Salmon Portland Chase	1864-1873	Abraham Lincoln
7	Morrison Remick Waite	1874-1888	Ulysses S. Grant
8	Melville Weston Fuller	1888-1910	Grover Cleveland
9	Edward Douglass White†	1910-1921	William Howard Taft
10	William Howard Taft	1921-1930	Warren G. Harding
11	Charles Evans Hughes	1930-1941	Herbert Hoover
12	Harlan Fiske Stone†	1941-1946	Franklin Delano Roosevelt
13	Frederick Moore Vinson	1946-1953	Harry S. Truman
14	Earl Warren	1953-1969	Dwight D. Eisenhower
15	Warren Earl Burger	1969-1986	Richard Nixon
16	William Hubbs Rehnquist†	1986-present	Ronald Reagan

† Denotes elevation from associate justice.

[OneTimeLurker]

Certainly not. Scalia is in line for the job.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

It is time to see it!

[maine-iac7]

some pretty good legal minds dissect Thomas' opinions and say there is some real food for thought. Scalia is brilliant, but may be too much "in your face" for the Left to accept.

Tough cookies.

It's about time to stop letting them call all the shots. Fight 'em to the mat and let the country see how ridiculous they are. Stop giving in the them.

Did we just win another election or what?

[Rainmist]

Wow, that's cool !! Thomas is from Pinpoint, a " community " in my city of Savannah. I hope he gets the nomination, he'd be a great pick.

[montag813]

It shows the depth of Arlen Specter's ignorance that he names Thurgood Marshall as on eof the "giants" of the Court, when every SCOTUS historian knows that--despite his excellence in the "Brown" case, Marshall had a rather undistinguished tenure on the SCOTUS. Specter is clearly motivated only by the politics of ethnic and leftist pandering, and has no place on Judiciary at all--let along as Chairman.

[Melas]

Thomas is a much better choice than Scalia. Scalia is just the flip side of the Ginsburg coin. You can always count on Ginsburg voting one way, and Scalia the other. Both are idealogues first, and jurists second. Thomas on the other hand is a mindful jurist and will follow the constitution, not his own personal ideology.

[Mount Athos]

I have the highest admiration of Scalia.
There is no way I would nominate him to be Chief Justice now. He's way too old, he is probably going to retire soon. He might even move on when a Democrat president takes over, as soon as 08 (sorry just being realistic). What a disaster that would be.
The only justice I would even consider nominating from the current court is Clarence Thomas. He's relatively young at 56, he's going to be there a while... That's probably who I would nominate, if he wanted it.

But most of the Chief Justices were nominated without even having been on the Supreme Court at all. So it's entirely possible to nominate someone not currently on the court... I think Clarence Thomas would have a relatively unstoppable nomination process, so that's a huge advantage. Still leaves you with a hole to fill on the court though...

[Sandy]

why fight twice for what can be had in one blow

Especially (God forbid) if we need a new CJ before the Court leaves for the summer. We don't need a double knock-down drag-out when there's cases that need to be heard.

What happens when a Justice leaves before cases are decided? Can a new Justice who wasn't around during oral arguments have a say on a decision? Or will we be stuck with a bunch of 4-4 decisions?

[tpaine]

Sandy wrote:

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.

_____________________________________


Interesting choice Sandy..

Do you have any others in mind?


Profile of Judge Alex Kozinski
Address:http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/kozinski.htm

[maine-iac7]

November 2: Insert knife. November 7: Twist.

;o)

Thanks for the chuckle

[xrp]

Clarence Thomas is at least 10 years younger than Scalia. More time, going forward, to cement a conservative as chief justice. Possible 40 years of a conservative as Chief Justice (198?-202?).

[rdb3]

Scalia would be better.

Why? Also, do you think age may play a part in this position?