Check out my diary yonder on the film, “Crash.” It’s a thinking — and feeling — person’s movie with intensely engaging characters, great dialogue (some laughing-out-loud funny), superb casting and performances, and a highly crafted plot.
Enroute, I almost crashed while listening to the new Sunday Air America show, “Politically Direct,” hosted by David Bender. He discussed the “Gang of 14” compromise, and said everything will come to a head when Rehnquist retires and — get this — Bush will nominate Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice, Bender predicts. I tried to steady the wheel. Then Bender named the likely candidates for Rehnquist’s seat: Alberto Gonzales or even Orrin Hatch, against whom it would be impossible for Senate Democrats to filibuster. Maybe I shouldn’t listen to any political radio while I drive. But we made it safely to the movie, and back home. Do see that film.
My greatest fear for Chief Justice, I remember the confirmation hearing very well and could not believe he was confirmed in view of the testimony.
Of course he would be Bush’s choice, who else??
My daughter was young when those hearings were on, and all the radio stations were carrying the hearings live, or replaying them. Whenever we got in the car, I’d have to switch stations madly so she wouldn’t hear all that disgusting stuff.
I followed those hearings too. Great theatre.
Sad outcome. I hate everyone who was mean to Anita Hill.
Clarence Thomas is a dud. To prove it check out his opinions (maybe 2 or 3 of them) on the Supreme Court
Website.
Will check out ‘Crash.’
It would be consistent with the administration’s penchant for nominating those least deserving. And Susan, might I suggest some music while driving. Any music suggestions from fellow Tribbers?
I suppose a Thomas nomintion would give Bush the chance to play the race card again (a vote or filibuster against Thomas is racist). But I wouldn’t count out Scalia, who’s smart enough to do a lot more damage to American freedom and justice.
Race card: That’s exactly what Bender mentioned on his radio show yesterday.
(That’s a good show, btw. The AirAmericaPlace archive hosts all but yesterday’s show … check back because they’ll add it shortly, I bet.)
We will relive the Anita Hill story again? Make an entire new generation of people see what a misogynist pig that man is and expose his hideous Scalia voting record. Perhaps someone in Hollywood should start working on “The Anita Hill Story” right about now as Ammo. btw/ If Orrin Hatch is put on the SCOTUS that will close the deal for me. I will be joining our friend Jerome..nothing like Paris in the Springtime, people watching while sipping a cup of Cafe au lait on the Champs Elysees. Dinner at Fouquets. Afternoon walks around Montmartre. Lighting a candle and saying a prayer for America at Sacre Coeur. Winter…heading up to the Alps, hanging out in Chamonix, skiing and Chocolat chaud.
Be careful.
Thank you 🙂 I was being a bit dramatic. I’s pretty good usually at performing multiple functions while I drive. For example, I can drive, spot Humvees, roll down my window, and give them the thumbs down. (There’s a loud yellow Humvee in town — I think I got that one three times last week!)
P.S. An aside. I tired of being tailgated because I had a Kerry/Edwards sticker on the back of the car. So we tore it off.
Now I have this: “I’m pro-salmon and I vote.” We bought the bumpersticker from some activists on Bainbridge Island who are going to climb a mountain, with sponsors, to publicize the plight of salmon. The group is http://www.wildsalmon.org/ You can buy t-shirts and coffee to help support the group.
When Thomas was confirmed, the AP ran a graphic that listed all the senators and how they voted. I made a copy, posted it on the fridge. As each of the Yes votes has left the Senate–retirement, death, non-election–I have crossed him off with a thick red line.
There are only a few left, and I wish them nothing but ill.
The idea of that third-rate intellect and utterly nasty man as head of this nation’s highest court is nauseating. I’m inclined to agree with Chamonix1 on what to do about that one.
Having a semi-literate POTUS and a semi-literate Chief Justice would cement our position as the laughing stock of the civilized world.
It’s part of the neocon plan of installing the least able, most malleable figures to head a branch of government?
Most legal commentators I follow seem to feel Justice Thomas does not want the job of Chief Justice, in part because he would be reluctant to undergo another bruising confirmation battle.
If Bush nominates a Chief Justice from among the current Associate Justices (which he is not at all required to do, and which is, in fact, rarely done), I would prefer Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter or Justice Kennedy, but these are unlikely choices. I would much prefer Justice Thomas to Justice Scalia, and expect the Senate would confirm Justice Thomas fairly quickly, while a nomination of Justice Scalia would provoke a bloodbath.
There are several reasons why I prefer Justice Thomas to Justice Scalia.
First, Justice Thomas has in fact proven to be an able administrator on the Court. His primary responsibility in this regard has been to update the Court’s technological capacity. It is somewhat odd that it was Justice Kennedy who Tom DeLay castigated for using the internet when it was Justice Thomas who actually has dragged the Court into the twenty-first century. Administration is the Chief Justice’s primary responsibility. Chief Justice Rehnquist has excelled at this, unlike his immediate predecessor. Justice Thomas would continue this tradition, while Justice Scalia would return the Court to the Dark Ages of Chief Justice Burger.
Second, Justice Thomas is far more able to work with the remaining Justices than Justice Scalia. He has never castigated his colleagues in his opinions or speeches (which are rare compared to Justices Scalia, O’Connor and Kennedy). For example, in the recent opinion on the Wine Cases, which featured an unusual (to non-lawyers) line up of the Court (Justice Kennedy writing for the Majority, joined by Justices Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer; Justice Stevens Dissenting, joined by Justice O’Connor; Justice Thomas Dissenting, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor), Justice Stevens almost sent Justice Thomas a love letter in his separate Dissent:
Third, I have had occasion to use one of Justice Thomas’ opinions on the important procedural rules lawyers are required to follow, and he has written to preclude the overuse of summary judgment, a tool defendants often zealously use to avoid trial in civil rights cases.
The Senate really screwed up in wasting energy opposing Justice Rehnquist’s nomination to be Chief Justice, and allowed Justice Scalia to sail through confirmation 98-0 on his nomination to replace Rehnquist as Associate Justice. We need to focus our energy on the nomination of the new Associate Justice should Bush seek to elevate Justice Thomas.
If Bush looks off the Court, I would hope for a nomination like Judge Birch of the 11th Circuit (of Shiavo fame, an appointment of Bush’s father), who would be an able Chief Justice, and who would more likely than not vote similarly to Chief Justice Rehnquist, if not slightly more moderately than him.
Likely appointments also include Gonzales and Michael McConnel, currently on the 10th Circuit, and Ted Olsen, the former Solicitor General. Judge McConnel is the most likely. Senator Hatch is also a possibility, but is likely too old to be chosen. The most arrogant possibilities are Miguel Estrada, who would really be an in your face nomination to the Senate which failed to confirm him for an appellate post, and The Red Queen of New Orleans, Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit.
Harvey Wilkerson is Chief Judge, and has a fair amount of respect across the politically spectrum, but I think he’s 64 or so, which might be too old. If not him, then Michael Luttig.
IANAL, but given the track record of 4th Circuit as most conservative, I would think Bush might well look there. And both of these guys would sail through the Senate w/o too much trouble. McConnell is still relatively new to Federal bench.
Then again, there is one thing on Wilkerson that could come back and bite him — in about 1997 or 1998, he testified against adding judges to fill vacancies in 4th Circuit because it would destgroy the collegiality of the Court. I believe this may have been in response to Clinton’s agreement to add an African-American to that Court, an appointment that was first stalled by republicans, but which Bush finally allowed to got rhough — Roger Gregory.
Now, if Bush really wanted to take a chance and make thigns interesting, he’d pick Richarfd Posner — but I don’t think he would want someone who actually thinks that much
Judge Posner (now on the 7th Circuit, from which Justice Stevens hails) or his disciple, Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford professor, would be a wonderful choice, and would bring to the Court someone who actually understands Intellectual Property issues, a significant federal issue. But both Judge Posner and Mr. Lessig are a tad too independent for Mr. Bush.
so he might just decide on Posner to pay him back for the tortured PR he produced on behalf of the SC’s partisan 2000 election decision. Despite that shameful performance, I get the impression that Posner would be unable to bloviate about how Jesus is his king, so he’s probably off the list.
Oops, the proper spelling is Ted Olson.
A sidebar attached to an AP story today in the Austin American Statesman (the sidebar is not available online) mentions a couple of 4th Circuit Judges and Judge Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit as possible nominees, and includes Judges McConnell and Jones, and Olson, as well as a few others.
Geographic Balance is an important factor in the composition of the Court, which is currently quite out of balance in favor of the 9th Circuit (Justice Kennedy of California, and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor of Arizona) and the 1st Circuit (Justice Souter of New Hampshire and Justice Breyer of Massachusetts). I think a nominee from the 4th Circuit unlikely as Justice Thomas already hails from this area, having grown up in South Carolina. The 10th Circuit has been unrepresented since the retirement of Justice Byron White, and the area covered by the old 5th Circuit (now the 5th and 11th Circuits) has been unrepresented since the retirement of Justice Hugo Black of Alabama years ago, though some current Justices have arguable ties to Florida and Georgia.
How would Hatch be qualified for the SC? Was he an appelate judge in his former life? What ARE the minimal experience qualifications for a nominee?
Actually there is no requirement a Justice even be a lawyer, much less have judicial experience.
Chief Justice Earl Warren was nominated to the Court as governor of California as a political pay back by President Eisenhower, and he turned out to be fine (at least by my reckoning).
Thanks for the info. So theoretically Bush could use a nomination to pay back anybody he wanted to. Like Dobson’s zombies.
It would be interesting if he decided to take out McCain by trying to put him on the court. I don’t share the adulation McC gets from many liberals, but he probably wouldn’t make me very unhappy as a justice. And even Hatch probably wouldn’t be any worse than Rehnquist. My fear and expectation is that Bush will try a real nutcase creationist type. Do you at least need a high school diploma?
Well theoretically Bush could nominate Dobson himself!
As teacherken pointed out last week in his excellent account of his evening with Justice O’Connor, Justice Jackson was the most recent member of the court not to have attended law school.
There is some concern here in Texas that Bush might nominate Senator Cornyn, who was at one time an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, but I doubt it. The last Texas Senator, John Tower, a Bush tried to shove down the Senate’s throat got a pretty lousy reception.
As Susanhu pointed out, Bush delights in playing the race card, and he is dying to appoint the first Hispanic Justice, but I think this round will go to Judge McConnell.