Bush Eyes Clarance Thomas for Supreme Court Chief Justice [Giving Liberals Nightmares Alert!]

Washington Whispers-U.S. News and World Report | Monday December 16, 2002 | Paul Bedard

[nicmarlo]

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are both great guys and seeing either one of them on the Chief Justice's bench would make my day.

I agree; but I'd prefer Scalia....I think he's a bit more experienced and more "forceful"......IMHO.

[Man of the Right]

Both would be great Chief Justices. However, Clarence Thomas possesses one quality Scalia doesn't: he's a great hater. Imagine the consternation among the left in general and feminists in particular if Thomas had the power to assign opinions for every left (especially feminist and affirmative action) for the next 30 years?

[CyberAnt]

You are so right, David! There will be many empty positions for all the greedy people left behind.

And ... I too will not be here!

[Arthur McGowan]

You mock me because I, personally, don't do something to remove Souter from the Supreme Court? Logically, then, you would have to mock all those people in Germany who knew that Hitler was a tyrant, but didn't "do anything" to remove him from power. Obviously, they didn't have the courage of their convictions. Or they didn't really hold those convictions at all.

[goodieD]

Well you picked my two faves.. what a choice.

[floriduh voter]

Thanks for the pings and bttt.

Now what do we do about the Ninth Circuit in Frisco? They seem to be out of touch.

[Spunky]

All Conservatives please note: The correct title is "Chief Justice of the United States," not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

Thank you for the education.

Not being familiar with how it works, I was wondering why a "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" wouldn't just move up into that position.

Now hearing the correct title; "Chief Justice of the United States" I understand why they need to be voted on.

[livius]

Silence is golden. And I don't think the most "activist" judges - that is, those who write the most - are the best ones.

I've heard Thomas speak and I've read his opinions. He would be fantastic: a careful, precise legal scholar, devoted to the Constitution.

[Irish Eyes]

Thanks for the reminder. I have been guily of that myself. You are SO right, it will be quite a bloodbath.

[fnord]

they are probably rioting at DU already

If not they're certainly revolting. :)

LOL, you sound just like Groucho

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[votelife]

bttt

[votelife]

bttt