Reid Says He Could Back Scalia for Chief Justice Comments Anger Liberals And Thomas Supporters

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, December 7, 2004 | Michael A. Fletcher

[4CJ]

The brilliance and superior intellect of Scalia, on the other hand, is very obvious during the courtroom sessions. For me this is persuasive.

To me the justices SHOULD already be cognizant of the Constitutional issues involved before oral argument. Still waters run deep ;o) I've read many of the decisions by Justices Thomas & Scalia, and I have yet to read one that I would consider wrong, or less than insightful opinion by either. I'd be proud to have either serve as Chief Justice. But if I had my pick, I'd pick Justice Thomas.

Harry Reid will not vote to affirm either, so who cares what the slimeball thinks.

[rod1]

The mantra should be "Reid obstructs the country's first chance ever for a Black Supreme Court Chief Justice"

Let Harry wear that Albaltross around his neck this coming year.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I don't care if Scalia is 99 years old - he's the only logical choice for Chief Justice. Democrats groused when Reagan nominated Rehnquist to be Chief Justice, but there was no way for them to offer any serious opposition to such an outstandingly qualified jurist. Scalia would be the same. Nominating Thomas as CJ would just guarantee a bloody fight, and conservatives should keep their powder dry to fight for the new nominee to replace Rehnquist. That's the battle that matters, and both sides know it.

[THE MODERATE]

Some liberals want to fight The President on any point, no matter how trivial, or futile it is. The difference between the Chief Justice and the other judges is not nearly as great as say a Committee Chairman ship in Congress, there are some administrative duties as well as the probability in more writings and the ability to choose who does the writings, but he has no greater judicial powers than any other justice. If Scalia is chosen as Chief the court would not become Conservative, and if the President choose a moderate it would become more moderate, but most liberals are too blind to see it. Bu the way I agree with the opinion that Scalia writings are perhaps some of the best written, of any justice and that may be why Reid said what he did, does anyone remember how Scalia voted on flag burning though I seem to think he was one of the justices who struck down the law but I can not remember.

[Agrarian]

Unquestionably Scalia is the most impressive mind on the court and would make the best Chief Justice. On the other hand, appointing Thomas would ensure keeping the job in right-thinking hands for longer, regardless of who wins the next series of elections.

Reid may be playing mind-games with the GOP here. Perhaps they have a great plan for scuttling (or at least severely damaging) Scalia -- hence the passing "ethics" mention. But maybe they know that they can't hurt Thomas -- what new will they throw against him? If they can discourage the GOP from nominating him, and discourage Thomas from accepting the challenge of going through the hell of these hearings again, then they will have eliminated the opponent they wanted to without having to risk alienating some blacks.

[Pfesser]

This from Inside politics:

"For no apparent reason, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' new leader, is denouncing Justice Clarence Thomas," James Taranto writes in his Best of the Web Today column at www.OpinionJournal.com.

Mr. Reid, in an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he might be able to support Justice Antonin Scalia as the next chief justice, but not Justice Thomas.

When host Tim Russert asked Mr. Reid why he opposed Justice Thomas, the senator replied: "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't — I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

Mr. Taranto commented: "Now, we haven't read Thomas' entire oeuvre, but we've read quite a few of his opinions, and we wouldn't describe any of them as 'poorly written' — much less so poorly written as to make him 'an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.' (One of our favorite opinions of recent years is Thomas' dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, the 2003 case upholding racial preferences in college admissions provided they're vague enough.)

"It's a shame Russert didn't press Reid to name some Thomas opinions he considers to be poorly written. In the absence of such examples, one can't help but suspect that the new Senate Democratic leader is simply stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black."

If a Republican leader said this, the media would be screaming for his resignation.

[AnAmericanMother]

Funny we quoted the same proverb!

BTW, a little private information - I know one of Justice Thomas's former clerks. He takes a back seat to no-one on sheer intellectual horsepower. He also is a good man, which probably is more important (you can always hire clever law clerks, and the USSC justices can take their pick from the very best in the nation.)

[ManHunter]

Now let me get this straight (obligatory rhetorical questions follow): Which party instituted Jim Crow laws in the South?; Which opposed integration, school busing, etc.?; Who created the KKK?; Which party counts among its sitting senators a 'former' high-ranking member of the [WV] KKK (without an utterance of protest by the MSM, I would add)?; and I could go on.

Now, Reid opposes Justice Thomas because he's been an "embarrassment" and his opinions are not "well written"? More than one LIBERAL law professor has commented on the brilliance of Thomas' opinions and his logic. Reid, never having read one of Thomas' opinions, is hacked off because Thomas has left the Democratic plantation - pure and simple. Had a conservative said what Reid said to Russert (without the appropriate "what the hell?" tough follow-up, of course), he/she would be hammered by the dumbocrats and their minions in the MSM...

[Vineyard]

Actually, both Scalia and Thomas are active in their Catholic Faith.

I have read or heard of many of Clarence Thomas's speeches; he speaks as a man of deep faith and conviction. I would not be worried about him being elevated to Chief Justice, I would enthusiastically support it!

The difference between Scalia and Thomas was described thus: While Scalia might pen an decision that is more lengthy and wordy, Thomas will have written decisions that are extremely concise and succinth. If brevity is the soul of wit, Thomas is a master. Scalia has perhaps become a bit bitter over the rampant liberalism from the other side, the total abandonment of trying to look to the intent of the Constitution, and has become verbose in his criticisms of the judical activis that is taking place.

Both men are brilliant. But when it comes to the bottom line, Thomas is 12 years younger, and might serve for another 20+ years as a Chief Justice, and the mark that he would leave on the political landscape might be impressive!

Mike

[AnAmericanMother]

There is an almost identical thread running, where I posted this to alessandro:

Certainly you're entitled to prefer your paisan. < wink > But how judges behave in oral arguments says very little about their competence.

Awhile back on public television, I saw an interesting talk Justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. They asked very challenging questions, and he gave remarkably honest answers. One of the kids asked why he does not say much in oral arguments - he responded that it was for a couple of reasons. First, he felt that too many questions in oral argument were "showboating" - he wanted to allow the lawyers to present their case without interrupting (implying that such questions are largely for the purpose of showing off - I happen to agree with him). Second, he mentioned that as a young man he had trouble shaking his "Geechee" accent (from the Ogeechee River, the Savannah equivalent more or less of Gullah) and that made him somewhat diffident about public speaking because of the scorn that rural accent incurred.

So his silence in oral argument has nothing to do with his intellectual ability. Still waters run deep.

link to other thread

[4CJ]

LOL!

I know one of Justice Thomas's former clerks. He takes a back seat to no-one on sheer intellectual horsepower. He also is a good man, which probably is more important

Too true. My impression on the oral arguments is that Justice Thomas is not out to play games, or to convince any other justice. Oral arguements are not binding - written opinions are. Besides, it's too easy for a justice to seemingly hold a position in arguement, only to be blown away by their actual opinion.

I agree, Justice Thomas is a good man. I like Justice Scalia as well. The dims will go ballistic either way, so why not pick a CJ that might serve another quarter of a century?

Lastly, IIRC Thomas and Scalia are the ONLY two justices besides Rehnquist that have not stated that their decisions are influenced by FOREIGN laws and opinions.

[4CJ]

Awhile back on public television, I saw an interesting talk Justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. ... Second, he mentioned that as a young man he had trouble shaking his "Geechee" accent (from the Ogeechee River, the Savannah equivalent more or less of Gullah) and that made him somewhat diffident about public speaking because of the scorn that rural accent incurred.

Been there, done that, watched the same show! C-SPAN series about America & the Courts IIRC. He got me when he pulled out his pocket Constitution - his opinions are based on what was within, not his personal opinion.

[AnAmericanMother]

I like Justice Scalia too. He is a no-nonsense man.

I would be perfectly happy with either one as CJ. But as you note, Thomas by the actuarial tables will have a longer term as CJ, and also it makes the race-baiting liberals' heads explode . . . . :-p

[AnAmericanMother]

I could not remember where I saw it - but I sure would love to get a tape! I thought he was eloquent, commanding, and convincing in that forum.

(And I remember him pulling out the pocket Constitution, too! Three cheers for the Constitutionalist Justice!)

[alessandrofiaschi]

In fact, Thomas intellectual ability is not strictly related to his "silence". He showed his limits in many few opinions.

[AnAmericanMother]

Good catch!

I found the link: Q&A Sessions with Justices. Video link is below.

[AnAmericanMother]

Name one and give the citation.

(BTW - "many" and "few" are mutually exclusive.)

[alessandrofiaschi]

yes!!! /"very few"

[AnAmericanMother]

Citation? Don't care if it's to U.S., S.Ct., or L.Ed., but I sure would like to see one of these "poorly written opinions" you and Sen. Reid are talking about. . . . because I haven't run across any of them in my work.

[BibChr]

Also, he said "IF" Scalie could clear the ethical complaints against him, which Can't said violated judicial ethics.

Dan