the fact this is not really 'new' news doesnt make it any less scary (here's a LINK to an article i posted in early august 2004 when thomas' biographer announced that thomas might be bush's first choice for chief justice).  obviously there are now additional fear factors involved (bush was reelected; rehnquist has cancer and is unable to fulfill his duties at least temporarily).

my concern about thomas has less to do with his judicial competence (or lack thereof), his party affiliation, his strange recent pronouncements about basing decisions on the declaration of independence since it provides the key to understanding what the founders intended of the constitution or his single 180 degree deviation from his high court record of affirming state supreme court decisions regarding interpretation of state legislation (thus 'electing' george w. bush president in 2000) than it does with his personal ethics.  roughly a year prior to thomas' nomination to the supreme court, i read an article about thomas in which one of his law clerks was interviewed.  the point of the article seemed to be that thomas may be a judge but he's also a regular guy with a good sense of humor. evidencing that trait, the clerk alluded to some recent inter-office joshing about porn flicks, in particular 'long dong silver'.   i was able to locate the publication during thomas' confirmation hearings and made a number of calls attempting to bring that to the attention of those conducting the hearing after thomas swore under oath that he had, in fact, no knowledge of that film or porn films in general. while i can no longer produce the interview (i lost roughly half a 24' ryder truck fulla books and magazines in 1994), it existed and thomas lied during his hearing.

as to your choice of scalia, are you familiar with his opinion that government"...is the minister of God with powers to 'revenge', execute wrath ..."

I personally would like to see Scalia as the new CJ as well, but I kind of doubt it. It may well be Thomas, or O'Connor since both would be history making. Since the CJ has no real greater power than the other Justices, I dont see it making too big ofn issue in the Senate. The next Justice to be nominated, however, will. And I believe it will be an Hispanic one.

As for Kingbee's allegation of the 180 degree regarding state supreme court decisions, there is a big difference. The Fla SC was going rogue and writing law, and it had to be stopped. He would have affirmed any sane decision, but even most of the liberal wing of the court said the FLA SC had gone too far. You dont have to be a genius to see they were clearly going to let it go on until Gore somehow found the votes necessary, clearly violating their own constitution.

Fla SC was going rogue and writing law,

that's a grossly distorted characterization of the case.  take a look at some of the opinions thomas rendered prior that one and youll see hed never allowed facts to get in the way of consistency til then. 

but even most of the liberal wing of the court said the FLA SC had gone too far

which would explain why there was a unanimous decision of course.     as i recall several opposing justices were quite upset about that ruling and the legal community was pretty much baffled by it as well.   im sure there must be an attorney or two in ju who may be able to offer their take on it tho.

Congress makes the law
Executive enforces the law
Judicial interprets the law

How hard is it to understand those three basic tenets of our system?

If any court gets into the habit of making laws than we have a case of one branch being out of control; I don't want appointed officials making the laws period.

Grim

Reply #1 By: kingbee - 11/8/2004 8:56:34 AM the fact this is not really 'new' news doesnt make it any less scary (here's a LINK to an article i posted in early august 2004 when thomas' biographer announced that thomas might be bush's first choice for chief justice). obviously there are now additional fear factors involved (bush was reelected; rehnquist has cancer and is unable to fulfill his duties at least temporarily). my concern about thomas has less to do with his judicial competence (or lack thereof), his party affiliation, his strange recent pronouncements about basing decisions on the declaration of independence since it provides the key to understanding what the founders intended of the constitution or his single 180 degree deviation from his high court record of affirming state supreme court decisions regarding interpretation of state legislation (thus 'electing' george w. bush president in 2000) than it does with his personal ethics. roughly a year prior to thomas' nomination to the supreme court, i read an article about thomas in which one of his law clerks was interviewed. the point of the article seemed to be that thomas may be a judge but he's also a regular guy with a good sense of humor. evidencing that trait, the clerk alluded to some recent inter-office joshing about porn flicks, in particular 'long dong silver'. i was able to locate the publication during thomas' confirmation hearings and made a number of calls attempting to bring that to the attention of those conducting the hearing after thomas swore under oath that he had, in fact, no knowledge of that film or porn films in general. while i can no longer produce the interview (i lost roughly half a 24' ryder truck fulla books and magazines in 1994), it existed and thomas lied during his hearing. as to your choice of scalia, are you familiar with his opinion that government"...is the minister of God with powers to 'revenge', execute wrath ..."

Oh, so you would rather have Arlin Specter as chief justice? Boy what a mistake that would be!

Congress makes the lawExecutive enforces the lawJudicial interprets the lawHow hard is it to understand those three basic tenets of our system?

Amen!!

It may well be Thomas, or O'Connor since both would be history making.

It will not be O'Connor as she has been wanting to retire for some time now, and with Bush's re-election she may very take this opportunity.

Congress makes the law Executive enforces the law Judicial interprets the law

I thought it was:
Special interests make the law.
Judicial pisses all over the law.
Exuctive breaks the law.