Not Again Please

From Bill in DC

Michael Kinsley talks about the almost inevitable nomination of Clarence Thomas for chief justice and wonders if the Democrats will have the balls to oppose it. He accurately states that Thomas was unqualified to be on the Supreme Court to begin with and is certainly not qualified to be chief justice.

Will President Bush actually have the guts to nominate Clarence Thomas for chief justice when that opportunity arises, which will probably be soon? You know he's just aching to do it. Because of their shared judicial philosophy, of course. But also because of that arrogant willfulness Bush has that a more generous person than myself might even call integrity. Heck, why be president if you can't rub your critics' noses in it?

And will the Democrats have the guts to oppose Justice Thomas's elevation to chief, resisting all the cries of, "Oh, for mercy's sake, you people -- not that again"? Those cries are starting preemptively, in an effort to cow the opposition party out of opposing a Thomas nomination. I wish I could be as confident of the Democrats' guts as I am of the president's.

He made it through confirmation once but..................

Ordinarily it's considered to be an advantage when a presidential nominee has already gone through a Senate confirmation hearing. One reason Bush chose Michael Chertoff for secretary of homeland security after his first nominee imploded is that Chertoff already had been confirmed as a federal judge. He's filled out the forms, been investigated, testified: Like a pre-approved mortgage, he can slip right through.

But Clarence Thomas is different, because his famous 1991 confirmation hearing was different. His strategy was to do or say anything that would allow him to crawl past the finish line. When the prize is a virtually invulnerable lifetime appointment, that's a good strategy. But it can and should haunt you when you put in for a promotion.

Thomas's performance at that hearing, the things we know now that we didn't know then, even the things we knew then but were bullied or rushed into ignoring, are not just fair game. They are disqualifying. If he wasn't unworthy of the Supreme Court when his confirmation hearings began, he certainly was by the time they were over. The fact that he was confirmed as an associate justice anyway is no reason to give him a free pass to chief justice. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Yes Bush does have that "in your face" attitude but the real problem is the partisan hackery of most lawmakers that always comes before the best interests of the country. And they will play the "black card" just like they are playing the "hispanic card" with the Gonzales nomination. Are there Blacks who are qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court? Yes. Is Clarence Thomas one of them? No. Like Kinsley, I am more sure of Bush's resolve that I am the backbone of the Democrats.