 |
|
Topic started on 7-11-2004 @ 07:19 PM by loam
|
external image
BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exclusive**
President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing
William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under
serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims.
"It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it
would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record."
One concern is the amount of political capital Bush would have to spend in congress to make the move.
A chief justice must be separately nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate, even if the person is already sitting on the court.
The need to replace Rehnquist could arise by year's end, Bush aides now believe.
Officially, Bush advisers call any Supreme Court vacancy talk premature.
Developing...
www.drudgereport.com...
This is going to be a hell of a ride...
Any question how forcefully Bush intends to push his agenda for America?
CT isn't even the smartest of the conservatives in the bunch. But he *is* the most conservative.....
Fasten your seatbelts, folks....
[edit on 7-11-2004 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 07:28 PM by Nerdling
|
He's also black, people have been saying for the past few days how he'll pick someone who is black or is latino whilst adequately qualified for the
duties. He's very conservative and now nobody will attack him for fear of being called a racist.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 08:54 PM by Intelearthling
|
Clarence Thomas as acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? 
I can't think of a better qualified person!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:35 PM by loam
|
Originally posted by Intelearthling
Clarence Thomas as acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
I can't think of a better qualified person!
Then you haven't ever read anything he or the other justices have written.
If you have to have a conservative replace Rehnquist, then O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy would at least be intelectually superior to Thomas, who in my
view is the mental and legal lightweight of the entire bench.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:43 PM by Simulacra
|
The only vague memory of Clarence Thomas I had when I was young was the alleged rape charge on...ah, I can't recall her name right now.
But what im trying to get at is...well, I'm not really sure.
He'll be good!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:51 PM by HowardRoark
|
Thomas is generally not considered one of the brightest justices.
Maybe that is why they would want him.
Can you just see it:
The Chief Justice not asking a single question during the oral arguments?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:53 PM by Valhall
|
Originally posted by Nerdling
He's very conservative and now nobody will attack him for fear of being called a racist.
uhhhhh....that didn't stop them last time! One of the greater debaucles I have watched real-time. It was beat out by the OJ Simpson trial.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:57 PM by loam
|
Originally posted by Simulacra
The only vague memory of Clarence Thomas I had when I was young was the alleged rape charge on...ah, I can't recall her name right now.
But what im trying to get at is...well, I'm not really sure.
He'll be good!
There was NO RAPE!!!
Her name was Anita Hill!!!
And, GOD!!! Now I understand this election's results far better....
Is this what our democracy has become? I'll jump off the cliff because *they* say it will be alright?
No offense, Simulacra, but would it make any difference to you if you lived under a conservative dictatorship that mirrored the policies and
convictions of this administration? Somehow, I think not...
Would it occur to you to even see whether there are better candidates on the bench? All of their written opinions are available to read. Have you done
that? Is your support for Thomas because *someone* told you that would be a good choice, or did you come to that conclusion on your own???
Yup, this election's result makes sense more and more....
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 10:11 PM by HowardRoark
|
Here is an raticle about Thomas's opinions
www.washingtonpost.com.../opeds
Scary stuff.
On the other hand:
Foskett also unearths a few curious facts about Thomas. His favorite movie is "The Fountainhead," based on the Ayn Rand novel about a
fiercely independent architect who dynamites his own building rather than see his ideas compromised; each year Thomas hosts a required screening of
the movie for his law clerks. 
Seriously, I suspect think it would be difficult to justify making him a chief justice.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 10:30 PM by marg6043
|
Originally posted by Simulacra
The only vague memory of Clarence Thomas I had when I was young was the alleged rape charge on...ah, I can't recall her name right now.
But what im trying to get at is...well, I'm not really sure.
He'll be good!
TextClarence Thomas sexual harrasment hearings
Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is accused by Anita Hill of sexual harrasment when she worked for him 10 years earlier. He was appointed
anyways, 52-48 by the Senate, despite having no real qualifications for the post.
I doubt it that Mr. righteous in the white house will appoint him.
People needs to learn about the important people that holds the balance of power in our nation. Some had shady pass.
I did watched the entire televised views, when this allegations were brought up.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 10:38 PM by Simulacra
|
Originally posted by loam
Is your support for Thomas because *someone* told you that would be a good choice, or did you come to that conclusion on your own???
Yup, this election's result makes sense more and more....
It is clear that I dont even know enough about Clarence Thomas to even form an opinon. That was the purpose of my post. It was sarcastic.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 10:40 PM by marg6043
|
Don't worry simulacra, some really need to learn the background of some of our most high power in this nation, so they see what is going on.
You are ok.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 10:55 PM by loam
|
Originally posted by Simulacra
It is clear that I dont even know enough about Clarence Thomas to even form an opinon. That was the purpose of my post. It was sarcastic.
I dutifully apologize then.
Sadly, I feel some may have missed the sarcasim and actually agree with the misinterpreted meaning....*sigh*
Anyway, sorry again.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 11:34 PM by FredT
|
I doubt Thomas will get the nod. Scalia is really the ideologe and is Thomas's mentor. If hes going full force with his agenda, Scalia will fit the
bill nicely. O'Connor may as well. In fact, I think it is more likely to be her or Ginsburg. He will already get the appointment for Rhenquest. Maybe
dangling the moderate O'Conner will pacify the Dems in the Senate a bit.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 12:46 AM by loam
|
Originally posted by FredT
Maybe dangling the moderate O'Conner will pacify the Dems in the Senate a bit.
She would be a much better choice.
A brilliant mind...
Conservative enough...
And the first woman to serve in that capacity...
What better play than that for Bush?
[edit on 8-11-2004 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
