After Roberts was nominated, I made the same point and Miss Marple challenged me to back it up with the facts. So, I researched it, and was surprised by the result.
President Bush never promised to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. What he did promise, however, and that more than once, was to nominate someone who is a strict constructionist.
The phrase "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" was first made by Al Gore, and he said it in a snarley way. The MSM picked up on that phrase, and within weeks, it was conventional MSM wisdom that Bush had made that promise. But he didn't.
So, if you're going to post a vanity thread, at least get your facts right.
You might ask what's the difference, and I would say there's a lot of difference. It's a difference of what the measuring stick is going to be. Scalia and Thomas have different voting patterns. Thomas is closer to being the total strict constructionist. Scalia is funnier, as well as being a deeper thinker.
But super-deep thinking is not necessarily the prime requisite of a strict constructionist. A strict adherence to the Constitution is. The Constitution is written in plain language, arguably to keep it accessible to the masses, who are not generally super-deep thinkers.
But all that isn't to say we need shallow thinkers on the Court. Far from it.
Tyvm for # 306. You are right, I did not know that about the Scalia/Thomas quote, altho I don't think it alters my point (except rhetorically).
Scalia and Thomas are similar because their opinions are more simply written than the others on the court. Simpler writing is the result of deeper thinking, IMO: it is like Dimaggio making it all look so easy. But "simpler" is a relative term, and any SC decision nowadays is a complex product.
I guess we will hear about Miers experience as a lawyer, and hope we hear it in detail. But I also guess that we have heard nothing substantive so far because there is nothing substantive.