[Rockingham]

Coulter is on the mark. I am a middle aged white guy who has read and met enough Black conservatives over the years to know that they are characteristically principled, independent, and tough-minded -- and often of the first rank in their fields. Being a Black conservative is no path for a sissy or a lightweight.

Clarence Thomas is a case in point. Reid and his ilk are correct to fear him as the more effective choice for Chief Justice than any of the alternatives: Thomas sometimes gets it right when even Scalia and Rhenquist misfire. If one has any doubt about this, take a look at the 1995 First Amendment case of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

Thomas, concurring with the majority, stated a powerful and impressive original intent interpretation in favor of the greater freedom of speech that Americans enjoyed in the founding era of the Constitution. Rhenquist and Scalia dissented. About a year ago, I heard Scalia remark in a speech that McIntyre was one of the few important cases in which he had differed from Thomas, but that he had begun to think that Thomas was correct. And Thomas surely was correct: if the Bill of Rights means anything, the rights that it contains must be preserved whole and undiluted as that founding generation intended and understood them.

Rhenquist has been a great Chief Justice, and Scalia is brilliant, but given my choice, I would prefer Thomas to Scalia or anyone else as the next Chief Justice.

[tarheelswamprat]

Clarence Thomas is a case in point. Reid and his ilk are correct to fear him as the more effective choice for Chief Justice than any of the alternatives: Thomas sometimes gets it right when even Scalia and Rhenquist misfire. If one has any doubt about this, take a look at the 1995 First Amendment case of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

I think you've hit upon something that all the network pundits, and even most Freepers are missing. Reid and the Dems are not slandering Justice Thomas because they're genuinely contemptuous of him, they're doing it because they fear him. Even Britt Hume and his panel can't seem to grasp this. Yesterday they were all in accord that Bush should not waste political capital by nominating Thomas since it wouldn't change the ideological orientation of the court. Their reasoning was that Reid was sending a clear signal that Scalia was "acceptable" but they would raise a stink over Thomas. Therefore Bush should save his political capital for a later nomination.

There is, however, another possible scenario in the making here. My personal assessment of Reid is that he's a nasty piece of work disguised as a mild-mannered milquetoast, but he's not stupid. Despite their public utterances, he and the other Dems know that their stonewall on judges was a significant factor in the recent election and that people are tired of it. Therefore, they ARE going to have to make some concessions in order to keep public opinion from turning against them.

Thus, the crucial question becomes "What is the least expensive, painful or damaging concession or compromise we can make?" that will satisfy public opinion and take the heat off of them. If they can induce President Bush to nominate Scalia as Chief Justice, they can spend a few weeks pretending to grill him on stupid inconsequentialities such as his hunting trip with Dick Cheney, and then, with great media fanfare and plaudits for their bi-partisan statesmanship, let him slide on in.

When the next nomination occurs, however, one which would actually change the balance of power on the court, they would be able to dig in and fight tooth and nail, all the while demanding that since they generously "compromised" and gave Bush his man it's now time for him to compromise and present a nominee more to their liking. After all, it's only fair! And of course, the media would be doing their part!

To sum it up, I believe Reid and the Dems are attempting to set a trap for President Bush on judicial nominees.