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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-337 next last
To: RWR8189

How can that POSSIBLY qualify as news? Of the sitting justices, obviously he is considering Scalia and Thomas. Duh. Certainly not Kennedy or O'Connor. (And it goes without saying that he's not considering Stevens or Breyer or Ginsberg or Souter.) "BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE" is not news, or speculation or anything else. It's "newsworthiness" is on the level of "SCIENTISTS DETERMINE THAT WATER IS WET".


61 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:12 PM PST by Lyford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sartorius
Shalom & Blessings!

Hi...Sartorius,

You Wrote: "I pray this is true. Judge Thomas is my personal favorite."

And I TOTALLY AGREE!

Judge Clarence Thomas would be a GREAT Chief Justice.

May GOD Bless Judge Thomas and Help President Bush to make this Good Decision for our Country.

62 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:20 PM PST by Simcha7 ((The Plumb - Line has been Drawn, T'shuvah/Return for The Kingdom of HaShem is at hand!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
It's a tease, but what a WONDERFUL tease!

Under Bush, our African-American brothers and sisters have been given the highest ranking posts EVER held by African-Americans: Colin Powell: SecOfState, Condi Rice: NSA.

Having Bush elect Thomas to be Chief Justice would just be the icing on the cake...

I'm a big fan of Scalia, but just for the AUDACITY of it, I'd love to see Thomas become Chief Justice...

63 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:25 PM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azzurri

Yep! He's the best choice. Ruthie may have to wait for awhile.


64 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:31 PM PST by Maria S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Shrug. The Chief Justice doesn't really have any extra power.


65 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:32 PM PST by Modernman (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

OK by me! Thomas has no qualms about revisiting Roe v Wade.


66 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:47 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Scalia would be better.


67 posted on 11/07/2004 3:51:56 PM PST by Ahriman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

a second career for Anita sHill.


68 posted on 11/07/2004 3:52:02 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if a man lives long enough, he gets to see the same thing over and over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

And you thought last week was action-packed.


69 posted on 11/07/2004 3:52:31 PM PST by Unknown Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sartorius

I would love to see this.

Then have all the judges over 65 resign, to allow Bush to nominate new younger ones.

William H. Rehnquist born October 1, 1924 80 yrs old
John Paul Stevens born April 20, 1920 84 yrs old
Sandra Day O’Connor born March 26, 1930 74 yrs old
Antonin Scalia born March 1, 1936 68 yrs old
Anthony M. Kennedy born July 23, 1936 68 yrs old
David Hackett Souter born Sept. 17, 1939 65 yrs old
Clarence Thomas born June 23, 1948 56 yrs old
Ruth Bader Ginsburg born March 15, 1933 71 yrs old
Stephen G. Breyer born Aug. 15, 1938 66 yrs old

And think, in 4 years, they will all be 4 years older.


70 posted on 11/07/2004 3:52:34 PM PST by FairOpinion (Thank you Swifties, POWs & Vets. We couldn't have done it without you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sartorius
Judge Thomas is my personal favorite.

Mine, too. He doesn't talk much in open court, but his written decisions are the best-reasoned in the bunch.

Unless he just has a fantasic clerk :)

71 posted on 11/07/2004 3:52:35 PM PST by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NetSurfer

Yes it has.If we can just get a good flatline on that terrorist Arafat .


72 posted on 11/07/2004 3:52:41 PM PST by JessieHelmsJr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

I think Scalia might not be in the best of health.


73 posted on 11/07/2004 3:53:01 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Watch out! I have bunny slippers and I am not afraid to use them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jewels1091

Alberto Gonzalez


74 posted on 11/07/2004 3:53:27 PM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
Here are a couple of pages with some good info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I thought the CJ also set the agenda for which cases would be heard, or at least had some influence over which to hear, but I don't see any reference to that. Guess I was wrong about that.
75 posted on 11/07/2004 3:53:46 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (I'm fresh out of tags. I'll pick some up tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA

Best parking spot. Right next to Associate Justice of the Month.


76 posted on 11/07/2004 3:53:53 PM PST by Crawdad (Take a camera to the polls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SnakeGuy

"The main thing the Chief Justice can do, is he gets to pick who writes the majority and minority opinions."



Well, he gets to pick who writes the Opinion of the Court when he is in the majority. When the Chief Justice is in the minority in a particular case, the Justice with the most seniority on the majority side gets to select who writes the Opinion of the Court.


77 posted on 11/07/2004 3:54:17 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I think Scalia is more of a strict constructionist than Thomas, even though I think they are both great. I wouldn't call either a textualist. I am afraid Scalia will retire if he doesn't get to be chief. That would be a shame. Although he would probably stay, if he had some besides Thomas on his side.


78 posted on 11/07/2004 3:54:26 PM PST by SnakeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SnakeGuy
The main thing the Chief Justice can do, is he gets to pick who writes the majority and minority opinions. That is a powerful way to influence the court. He can always pick himself to write opinions he has strong beliefs on.

It's somewhat influential. However, any Justices who aren't altogether happy with the Chief Justice's opinion can go and write their own, concurring, opinions.

A CJ therefore has to be a good politician or he'll find that his opinions are constantly being diluted by concurrences.

79 posted on 11/07/2004 3:54:46 PM PST by Modernman (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

WOHOOOOO!

Thomas's revenge!!!!


80 posted on 11/07/2004 3:55:23 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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