Posted on 12/07/2004 5:46:03 AM PST by alessandrofiaschi
Reid Says He Could Back Scalia for Chief Justice Comments Anger Liberals And Thomas Supporters
By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 7, 2004; Page A04
Partisans on both sides of the debate over judicial nominees voiced displeasure yesterday with incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid's comments indicating that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could make an acceptable nominee for chief justice.
In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the Nevada Democrat said that although he often disagrees with Scalia, he could support him to be chief justice of the United States because he is "one smart guy." Reid qualified his statement, however, saying Scalia first would have to overcome "ethics problems," including his refusal to recuse himself from a case involving the Office of the Vice President after accompanying Vice President Cheney on a duck-hunting trip to Louisiana in January.
Reid's comments startled lobbying groups preparing for the battles sure to come with the likely turnover in the Supreme Court in the near future. Eight of the nine justices are age 65 or older. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer and has missed the court's public sessions in recent weeks, generating speculation about who would replace him should he step down.
Members of several liberal activist groups called Reid's office yesterday to seek an explanation of the Democratic leader's comments and to say they would oppose the elevation of Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices. "We would strongly oppose the nomination of Justice Scalia to chief justice," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way. Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, added that "ethics issues alone" should keep Scalia from becoming chief justice.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Scalie = Scalia.
Sigh.
Senator Reid.... remember Trent Lott's remarks?
Why is the senator getting a free pass?
On the other hand, I did enjoy Scalia's dissent (joined by Thomas) in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), especially their line, '[t]he year was 2001, and "everybody was finally equal." K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)'
Thanks for the link - I'll watch it again.
Well you are right about that. I probably shouldn't have made the Reid reference because his comments were way out of bounds vis a vis Thomas. I was really only referring to his positive comments about Scalia.
I won't be disappointed if Bush goes for Thomas. I just think Scalia would be the better choice.
Maybe thinking that a shot across Justice Thomas's bow will discourage him from going through that "high tech lynching" again . . .
Either would be a great choice - they are by far the most conservative Justices (strict Contitutionalists). I just wish there were 7 more like them on the court.
Baloney.
he isn't a brilliant member of the Court.
Legal scholars disagree with you; in fact, his legal opinions are the closest to Scalia on the court.
The biggest stories of the next two years will be related to judgeships - both USSC and other Federal posts.
It is going to be interesting to see if the Old Media FRAUDcasters have gotten the message and decide to play it fair, or if they will accelerate their plummet to the depths of obscurity.
The Demodogs will give them every opportunity to do so... will they rise to that bait?
Yours is one of the most insightful posts on this thread. And contrary to the disparaging comments of Reid, Nat Hentoff, (honest and principled liberal) Constitutional scholar, thinks Thomas is one of the best things to happen to the SCOTUS in a long, long time. I doubt he would feel that way if Thomas' opinions were awkward, poorly written, or improperly reasoned. I support Thomas as CJ.
I love the mention of Scalia too, but he *may* have too much baggage with these ethics violations to survive the process. Either way, it will be a bloody fight, because that's just the way the left is.
I would be thrilled with either, but there is something inside me that says Thomas would be a better pick. I totally disagree with the smear that he is not very intellectual; his opinions and observations are thoughtful, concise, and bound by the Constitution. He's a fine man, a fine justice, and I think deserves this pick.
I'd be interested in reading what Henthof has written on Thomas -- you wouldn't happen to have any links?
My gut level is the same, in spite of my deep love and respect for Scalia. See my post # 25 for some political thoughts, as well.
I suppose, but I'd rather have Thomas. They have similar philosophies, and Thomas will be around for a good long time, at least probably longer then Scalia.
Besides, since Harry Reid doesn't want Thomas, that must mean he'd be the better choice :).
In Reid's defence, he is legitimately different then Dashle on abortion, which is a REALLY big deal in his party.
That said, he's a lefty on everything else, so no love fest or anything.
Here is some of what I found by Googling "Nat Hentoff" + "Clarence Thomas". Please forgive any html-challenged problems (LOL!).
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0403/hentoff.php
From a different link with a review about Hentoff's book “Independent Thinker”: “For many readers, though, Hentoff's appreciation for civil liberties will take its most surprising form when he shares his thoughts on Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Hentoff notes Thomas's deficiencies, but also declares that he "has written as boldly and uncompromisingly in celebration of the First Amendment as did Justices William O. Douglas and William Brennan, Jr. in days of yore." Meanwhile, liberal hero Bill Clinton gets repeated drubbings for his poor Constitutional record.”
http://www.lawschool100.com/blackprofs.htm
At this link is the story of the black law professors boycotting Thomas' appearance, and contains the following quote from Hentoff: "The irony of this abdication of professional responsibility to students is Justice Thomas' record at the Supreme Court as one of the strongest voices for free speech. From the bench, he has said (as the lone justice who wanted to review an egregious repression of free speech in Avis Rent a Car System vs. Aguilar): "A theory deeply etched in our law is that a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable."
And my personal favorite Hentoff analysis, where he compares Thomas to some pretty powerful thinkers on the SCOTUS: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111202.asp
As pointed out elsewhere, he was a dissenter on that horrible Michigan admissions case, and I've been impressed with his succinctness and brevity. He is not a grandstander.
Thanks much. I'll enjoy reading these.
Cause Reid HATES Thomas. Heck, I'd as soon see Scalia as Chief Justice, myself! Scalia is a winner and could be one of the best Chief Justices of the Supreme Court in the history of this country!
Blood? There's no blood involved. It'll simply come to a vote. You want blood, there's another thread, here, concerning one Sgt. Peralta. That was a bloody fight.
Not to mention Scalia himself.
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.