Would it be risky for Democrats to oppose the first ever black chief justice?

[Richard]

Moral voice of the Democrats Ted Kennedy has "ruled out" Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice.

Do you believe that the it would be risky for the Democrats to oppose the first ever black Chief Justice?

[Joe Republic]

If they do, they can forget about affirmation action or similar nonsense.  They'd lose all credibility with that policy.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No. Just because someone is black doesn't make them qualified.

I don't care about Chief Justice though, it's a mostly ceremonial position.

[The Dowager Mod]

Thomas isn't qualified for the job he has now.

[A18]

Not only is Thomas qualified for his position, he's a hell of a lot more fit for the job than that joke Stevens.

That said, I expect Bush to appoint a new judge to that position.

I guess there's less than two weeks left for Rehnquist to make his decision about stepping down this term.

[Beet]

If they do, they can forget about affirmation action or similar nonsense.  They'd lose all credibility with that policy.

Huh?

Republicans lose credibility opposing affirmative action when they nominate or highlight someone who is minority or female on some basis other than merit for the job specified (i.e., political reasons).

Democrats aren't affected by opposing candidates they think are unqualified for a job, I don't see why it would effect them.

[TeePee4Prez]

Why should race matter?  Thomas is a dodo and so is Scalia.

[WalterMitty]

thomas isnt black, he is an 'uncle tom' according to the liberals.

the democrats get away with all kinds of nonsense.

remember during thomas' confirmation hearings.  the subject of his video rentals came up.

just imagine if the republicans had dared asked a black man if he rented 'long dong sliver'.  jesse jackson would still be on a hunger strike.

[Blue Rectangle]

The scandal manufactured by the Democrats when Thomas was nominated didn't keep him from the Court (even though the Dems controlled the Senate).  That was a long time ago, so what can the Dems use against him this time?

Opposition would have to come in the form of filibuster or procedural delays in committee, since Republicans aren't going to defect on Thomas (maybe a certain RI RINO, but no others).  Since a partisan filibuster of elevation to Chief Justice is unprecedented, I think it would be a huge mistake.

[TheresNoMoney]

The issue is moot.

Thomas has already said he's not interested in being Chief Justice.

[David S]

No. Most people could care less about the supreme court. The average man in the street, or woman in the street, probably could not name more than one or two of the justices if that.

[Hitchabrut]

No, because they're Democrats. Fritz Hollings didn't recieve any criticism from the media for saying that Bush went to war to protect Israel, but Trent Lott's remark which simply praised Strom Thurmond ended his tenure as senate majority leader.

[The Dowager Mod]

Thomas is simply not bright enough to be chief justice.
Scalia certainly is though.

[A18]

I was reading the other day:

Intriguingly, [Senator] Kennedy said that of the three oft-mentioned, younger appeals court judges who are candidates for the chief justice slot - J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts or Michael McConnell - one would be acceptable. "I'm not going to get into which one" because that would be "the kiss of death" for that person, he said.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats will oppose extreme wingnuts regardless of skin color.
However, since Thomas is already on the court, it really doesn't make much difference whether he's chief justice.

[Smash255]

No, because they're Democrats. Fritz Hollings didn't recieve any criticism from the media for saying that Bush went to war to protect Israel, but Trent Lott's remark which simply praised Strom Thurmond ended his tenure as senate majority leader.

Lets see Lott praised a Segregationalist & suggested we wouldn't have all these "problems" if he won in his run for President in 1948.  In 1948 when Thurmond ran for President he was a complete & utter racist & ran under the sole platfoorm of keeping Segreation

[Beet]

No, because they're Democrats. Fritz Hollings didn't recieve any criticism from the media for saying that Bush went to war to protect Israel, but Trent Lott's remark which simply praised Strom Thurmond ended his tenure as senate majority leader.

Lets see Lott praised a Segregationalist & suggested we wouldn't have all these "problems" if he won in his run for President in 1948.  In 1948 when Thurmond ran for President he was a complete & utter racist & ran under the sole platfoorm of keeping Segreation

Yeah, Lott's insinuations clearly went beyond just ordinary political statement.

Also, this was one thing the media didn't pick up on at all until the blogs hammered at it.

On the other hand, the media seems to be great at picking up Natalee Holloway-type stories, even if it ruins the livelihoods of people living in Aruba.

[WalterMitty]

No, because they're Democrats. Fritz Hollings didn't recieve any criticism from the media for saying that Bush went to war to protect Israel, but Trent Lott's remark which simply praised Strom Thurmond ended his tenure as senate majority leader.

Lets see Lott praised a Segregationalist & suggested we wouldn't have all these "problems" if he won in his run for President in 1948.  In 1948 when Thurmond ran for President he was a complete & utter racist & ran under the sole platfoorm of keeping Segreation

well, you do know that fritz hollings was himself a segregationist?

but racism is fine as long as youre a democrat (ie robert byrd)

[J. J.]

No, because they're Democrats. Fritz Hollings didn't recieve any criticism from the media for saying that Bush went to war to protect Israel, but Trent Lott's remark which simply praised Strom Thurmond ended his tenure as senate majority leader.

Lets see Lott praised a Segregationalist & suggested we wouldn't have all these "problems" if he won in his run for President in 1948.  In 1948 when Thurmond ran for President he was a complete & utter racist & ran under the sole platfoorm of keeping Segreation

well, you do know that fritz hollings was himself a segregationist?

but racism is fine as long as youre a democrat (ie robert byrd)

Walter, that's not really fair.  It is "Klan Membership" that doesn't really matter if you are a Democrat

[TheresNoMoney]

The guy was in the Klan 60 years ago.

His voting record shows he's far from a racist.

[WalterMitty]

The guy was in the Klan 60 years ago.

His voting record shows he's far from a racist.

ooooook.

his use of the n word still proves he is.

[TheresNoMoney]

Republicans talk about it like it's current news. It was 60 years ago, everyone in West Virginia already knows and have known about it for a long time.

If they had a problem with it they already would've voted him out.

[DanielX]

I'd rather have Thomas then Scalia. Believe it or not, they're not identical; Thomas is slightly more strict in defining the Constitution, Scalia is slightly more conservative politically.

Personally, I think Bush should appoint John Bolton as Chief Justice (just kidding).

[??????????]

Republicans talk about it like it's current news. It was 60 years ago, everyone in West Virginia already knows and have known about it for a long time.

If they had a problem with it they already would've voted him out.

1948 was almost 60 years ago. Why does Lotts comments matter?

[??????????]

If they do, they can forget about affirmation action or similar nonsense.  They'd lose all credibility with that policy.

Huh?

Republicans lose credibility opposing affirmative action when they nominate or highlight someone who is minority or female on some basis other than merit for the job specified (i.e., political reasons).

Democrats aren't affected by opposing candidates they think are unqualified for a job, I don't see why it would effect them.

Nice double standard, ain't it?