Laura Ingraham's Weekly E-Blast, 2/8/05

Laura's Weekly E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com
February 8, 2005

Order in the Court: Chief Justice Thomas Presiding

At some point in the near future, George W. Bush will have to make one of the most important decisions of his presidency. He will have to nominate a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and at the same time a new Associate Justice.
The drawn-out and rancorous questioning of Alberto Gonzales should disabuse the White House of any hope that Democrats would give him a pass on his first Supreme Court nominee. Indeed Senators Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy are pledging to stop any nominee who falls outside "the judicial mainstream." (Read: Any Supreme Court nominee who does not enthusiastically embrace abortion rights will face a bruising confirmation battle.)

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid warned against any attempt to elevate Justice Clarence Thomas to the position of Chief, branding Thomas's tenure on the Court as an "embarrassment" and his opinions as "poorly written." Although Reid expressed support for his personal friend Scalia as Chief, Schumer quickly clarified that Reid "will not support judicial nominees who are out of the mainstream."

So what should the President do? In three words: GO FOR IT.

When Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down, the President should move swiftly to nominate Associate Justice Clarence Thomas to replace him (and simultaneously nominate someone of equal caliber and philosophy for the associate justice vacancy). Why Thomas over Justice Antonin Scalia? Scalia would be an exceptional Chief Justice too, but is perhaps most effective in (and seems to relish) his role as an outspoken -- and sometimes strategically provocative -- guardian of the constitution. We cannot afford to lose that. Justice Thomas's intellect, humility, genuine affection for his colleagues, and keen sense of humor, has won him the respect and friendship of his fellow Justices. His votes and opinions during his 13 years on the Court make him ideally suited to oversee it in a manner that is consistent with conservative principles long after President Bush has retired to Texas.

Thomas respects the separation of powers, and as such the limits of judicial powers. Even those who don't share his judicial philosophy have recognized his opinions as thoughtful and well-reasoned. He has distinguished himself numerous opinions, including in his dissent in the U.S. Term Limits case, where the Court held that the states could not impose term limits on members of Congress; and in his concurrence in the Lopez decision, where he explained why Congress had for decades been overstepping its authority under the Commerce Clause. Even The Harvard Law Review noted recently that Justice Thomas "has emerged as one of the Court's most prolific writers."

It is true that Thomas will face the wrath of those Democrats who are hell-bent on resurrecting all the nonsense from his 1991 confirmation fight. That is sooo last century. More certain is that Democrats will attempt to block any nominee-including Thomas-unless they commit to vote their way on a range of "litmus test" issues. They already know that Thomas will not play this game. They know he will not promise to vote a certain way on hypothetical cases. So let them rattle off their demands. Let them rage against the dying of their light.

It is up to this President to expose the Democrats' outlandish method of evaluating judicial nominations. By nominating Thomas to the position of Chief, he will have the opportunity to do just that. By requiring that judicial nominees take positions on issues and make commitments on future cases that have yet to come before the Court, Democrats are essentially forcing them to treat confirmations hearings like political campaigns. This in turn means that the federal bench becomes just one more place where political food fights happen.

If the Democrats respected their constitutional role of "advise and consent", they would quickly vote to confirm Chief Justice Thomas and put the ill-advised political fights of the past behind them. The results of the last election make clear that this is no time to appease or compromise on judicial appointments. Such a failure of purpose would break the trust of the people who worked so hard to reelect the president.

If the Democrats really want a fight over judges, let's give them one. The White House should force the Democrats defend the type of loony judicial activism that has enraged Americans for decades. Make the Democrats explain why our Constitution supposedly reflects every single one of their policy preferences--but prohibits those of conservatives. Point out all of the wacky decisions issued by liberal judges in recent years. For over 35 years, Democrats have been losing votes because of liberal judges. If President Bush stands up to them on this issue, he will win.

Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. It's time.