Posted on 10/04/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by frankjr
... Ultimately, however, the importance of Supreme Court Justices is not in the image they offer but in their workaday decisions that affect our lives. Clarence Thomas's (and George Bush's) legacy will be defined not by his pigmentation, but by his written opinions and by whether he contributes to the transformation of the Supreme Court into a responsible interpreter of the Constitution.
On the basis of what is known, there is every reason to believe that Judge Thomas will live up to his promise. Truth be told, however, his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian. So it is vital that conservatives, during these brief moments of accountability in the judicial-selection process, should participate fully in public dialogue with the nominee. Unlike the liberals, however, our aim should be to learn not what Judge Thomas thinks about abortion, South Africa, contraception, and funding for the arts, but what he thinks about the role of the judicial branch within our constitutional system.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Funny what they thought of Thomas back then.
He's our best Supreme Court Justice today, IMHO.
Funny.
I posted an article yesterday where an author claimed Clarence Thomas was a "stealth nominee."
My point was that we did not know a whole lot about Clarence Thomas when he was nominated, just as we do not know a whole lot about Miers.
I wish I had known yesterday that the National Review claimed Thomas was "Souteresque."
O'Connor - bad
Kennedy - bad
Souter - horrible
Thomas - Great
Roberts - Probably good, but still unknown
Therefore, we should trust that Miers will be good.
Is that the logic?
Spot on, RR.
This article reminds us that even if Bush nominated a "known quantity", we still don't KNOW how that person will rule until they are seated.
An interesting hypothetical question here is this: If Bush were up for re-election (and thus able to be held politically accountable at the ballot box) would he have selected Miers?
I still think that with Roberts and Miers the GOP will be able to have its cake and eat it, too. IF they do what Bush believes they will do on the court, then Conservatism will be maintained among the Supremes, and his legacy will be cemented.
BTW, the other justices ain't gettin' any younger, ya know. We might...MIGHT....see another vacancy due to health concerns.
If Miers crashes and burns in the confirmation hearings, all bets are off. :)
It says:
...his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian.
"Is that the logic?"
No, I think the logic is let's see what comes out on Meirs over the next 6 weeks and see how the confirmation hearings go before judging if a nominee is horrible or great. Most people seem to be jumping to conclusions with little or no facts. Does someone with no experience on the bench mean he/she will be a bad judge? Not necessarily. Does someone without a J.D. from Havard a crappy judge? Probably not. Does someone who gave $1000 to Gore a closet Dem? Mmmmm, ok, that one is a little tougher.
"They didn't claim Thomas was "Souteresque.""
You're right, they said he appears more Souteresque then Borkian in all but one area.
...they said [his record] appears more...
The simple fact that most of the knee jerk posters here don't know a damn thing about her won't stop them from running off the rhetorical cliff. In the meantime, the people who do know her and have known her for many years vouch for her solid originalist temperment. Just saw a Texas Supreme Court judge interviewed on Fox who spoke very highly of her.
Yesterday, I speculated that the angst in Conservative circles is most likely over the fact that we will not see a big bar room brawl in the Senate over this nominee as there would have been with Brown or Luttig. I think they wanted the fight (win or lose, and we would have probably lost) rather than a good original intent justice. And frankly, sometimes it seems that the red meat brigades love to lose.
"...they said [his record] appears more..."
I think that saying someone's record appears more Souteresque is more damning that saying someone on the surface appears more Souteresque (with no record to point to in support of that claim).
Rehnquist was actually an unknown in his day...no judicial experience. Assistant to John Mitchell. A law clerk before that.
A distinction without a difference.
Dane, thanks for the heads up. I'm young enough that pubic hair jokes were all the rage in the schoolroom during the Anita Hill hearings. So, for me, it's not quite "everything old is new again." Yet.
I also want to make it clear that I am not saying the Miers will be a great Justice or a horrible justice. I do not know at this point. I will form my opinion as more information comes out. However, at this point, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Not really. Their application of the term is far narrower than you make it sound.
True, eventhough Harriet seems to have very conservative values, we still don't know how much those values will translate into rulings. I feel better about this nomination than I did, but I would be more comfortable with someone we know. Not even Bush knows for certain how Harriet will rule.
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.