1) As youngest member of SCOTUS, we'd get 20 years of a Thomas court, vs. 8 years of a Scalia court. Isn't the whole point of getting nominees on the court to prolong your beliefs for many years to come?
2) Thomas is quiet, thoughtful, and persuasive... all skills need for a C.J. to "reach consensus". Scalia is an outspoken intellilectural leader of the court -- traditionally NOT the role of C.J., but the person delegated to write the most opinions on the court (like Oliver Wendell Holms, Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, etc.)
3) For the first time ever, a well-qualified CONSERVATIVE black guy in CHARGE of one of three branches of government. He's far more worthy of the position than Martinez was to be Senator or Rice as POTUS. Liberals will burst a blood vessel that Republicans put a "minority" in charge of one of the three branches for the first time ever. Senator Byrd will drop dead of a heart attack.
Amen . . . THOMAS is the better choice. Plus, I think there is some advantage in playing chicken with the Democrats on this. Let them bring Anita back to the Hill. Let's have another circus. Let's see if the country will wake up and remember who it was that started this "politics of personal destruction" game. By the way . . . in all the time that he has been on the Supreme Court, has anyone ever heard of Thomas displaying the kind of behavior that Anita Hill described?