Funny what they thought of Thomas back then.
He's our best Supreme Court Justice today, IMHO.
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. :)
Another thing about this is the experience issue. People forget that Souter was on the 1st Circuit Court for 1 month, and Thomas was on the DC Circuit Court for 1 year when they were nominated. And O'Connor and Rehnquist had 0 federal court experience.
Miers not being a federal judge is not a big experience gap. It just makes her a stealth candidate on federal issues, but being stealth is the trend these days.
He and Scalia make a formidable team. Scalia is the flamboyant, eloquent one who gets the press with his dazzling rhetorical flourishes. Thomas toils in the background, never letting ego get in the way of his job, grinding out simple, well reasoned opinions with tons of precedent. In opinion after opinion Thomas has consistently laid out the foundation of modern originalist constitutional interpretation. Thomas has refused to join the school of "sophistry over reason" which seems to have infected Supreme Court jurisprudence. If the USSC ever does get its house in order, it will because it now sits on a strong foundation, courtesy of Clarence Thomas.