Posted on 11/08/2004 10:29:12 AM PST by NYer
Dear friend, I agree. Scalia is the most qualified for this role. Those who think to gain some new black votes in this way, deceive themselves. Besides, we are not glowering as Demon-rats! Please, we are conservative republicans!
President Bush, please name Scalia as CJ.
That's because they refused to name what part of the decision they were questioning him about.
Ohhhh, what a candid man is Thomas! Wahhh, please. Scalia is infinitely better than Thomas. Scalia believes in conservative values because he concretely lives following them.
Thomas was supported by black lobbies. I like him in Court (not as CJ, only AJ), but let's remove our blinders.
Forgive me for saying this, but I don't envision Bush confronting the Democrats head-on over Justice Thomas. Bush's style is to NOT be confrontational (otherwise he would have slapped down Teddy K by now, and he hasn't.) Bush is too clever to go over the top against the Democratic interest groups when they're dug in.
1 caveat: The object might be to let Justice Thomas take the hits while another associate justice goes through the nominating process. If that's the strategy, it requires Justice Thomas' cooperation. I admire the man because he is a strong individual, but I don't see him taking the nomination if he thinks GWB wouldn't back him to the hilt.
I will bet that Thomas is nothing more than a trial balloon. My money is that Bush will nominate O'Conner...she will end her service as the top dog and will eventually be replaced before Bush's 2nd term expires. More importantly for Bush, her nomination would proceed without a fight in the Senate.
An odd thing to say considering their voting records are nearly (if not) identical.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I think Thomas, Scalia, or O'Connor would all be good choices for various reasons. But you're right that O'Connor, along with Rehnquist and Stevens, is the most likley to be gone before the end of Bush's term - and so would he nominate her knowing that, and would she take it? An O'Connor nomination would likely easily pass, as you said, and this could be a plus for furture nominees, or a minus. It would give more an image of moderation to Bush's picks. On the other hand, the Left could say "We didn't block O'Connor for CJ, so you shouldn't complain now that we're blockig X"
Of course the left sets up every situation so they can blame Bush either way. Nominates O'Connor = "We're justified in blocking this 'far right extremist' because they're not moderate like O'Connor." Nominates Thomas/Scalia = "You're still nominating 'far right extremists' just like when you wanted to elevate Thomas and Scalia to CJ"
Bah. F'n hypocrites.
I like it.
Good article about Thomas which makes your point.
Knees and Rosary time.
Just for your information, I too am married to a non-white elegant lady. Yet my Conservative views still generate Lefty accusations of racist, bigot, intolerant, homophobe, etc. Trust me, it WILL come up: Bush is doing it just to appoint a "black man," Thomas isn't really black (the NAACP whackos will say), etc. Look how Bush's cabinet has been decried by the Far Left, yet Kerry's all-white campaign advisors were ignored.
What's interesting is that in 1986, I believe, when Rehnquist was nominated to be CJ, Scalia's nomnination to replace Rehnquist was approved almost if not unanimously. What does this mean? Any number of things. It could mean that O'Conner could be appointed CJ and a true believer as AJ, without much problem. It could mean that Scalia gets nominated and a more moderate nominated to replace him. (not a good idea, in my book) It could mean that Pres. Bush will say "Screw em. I'm going to do the right thing." Here's hoping for the Pres. doing the right thing.
Sorry, Bill Clinton was an advisor. He qualifies. Yea....right.
Good comments in your post. Thanks.
Question for you.. Justice Thomas NEVER speaks during arguments..could he be the nation's first SILENT Chief Justice?
Scalia is better philisophically, but Thomas is 10 years younger. Slightly less impact but, theoreticly, perhaps for much longer.
Reinquist is done; O'Connor and Kennedy have already stated they may abide by "international law," ergo are exposed as dupes and dopes; Scalia -- though certainly a great candidate -- is considered the most conservative of the SCJ, and thus "too conservative," leaving Chief Justice Clarence Thomas.
I doubt very much the Judiciary Committee will engage in one more "high tech" lynching of Justice Thomas.
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.