Scalia is 12 years older than Clarence Thomas.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Which means he'll likely retire or die long before Clarence Thomas will. Which means we'll be able to possibly get a liberal Supreme Court Justice sooner than with Scalia than we will with Thomas.

So before you bash Reid, remember this: When picking between pure evil and ALMOST pure evil, you pick the one who'll die first. There's little difference between the two anyway.

[tk2kewl]

1. a new non-nazi appointment could be the chief

that should be the official/public position of the dems imho

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Well who do YOU think Bush is going to nominate?

I'll give you a hint, it won't be a liberal.

[tk2kewl]

10. of course not...

But the dems should flat-out state that there is not an appropriate candidate already on the court and that a moderate compromise candidate should be appointed. The country was virtually split down the middle in this election after all.

If this is the message the dems would be sending out NOW, then when a wignut gets the appointment they have a much stronger position to argue from.

[JHBowden]

2. Y'gotta be kidding me.

Scalia is less "evil" because he is older?

Democrats will team up to ferociously take down someone like Howard Dean, but they pamper fools like Scalia and Bush. I don't get it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. No, that is not what I said at all.

I said that they're both evil. One may be more evil than the other, but it doesn't matter - they both suck.

But since those ARE the only choices, you choose the one you're stuck with for less time. Simple logic.

[WI_DEM]

3. you must mean a liberal CJ sooner

since Thomas will still be a member of the court if Scalia is selected CJ. It will open up a vacancy for Scalia's seat actually which means that instead of one nomination Bush will be making two, Scalia (if he is the choice) for CJ and then someone to replace Scalia. I think Scalia should be opposed as well as Thomas or anyone who has as bad a record of Scalia. It is not about tenure it is about convictions. I doesn't matter if Scalia serves 15 years or 25 years he is just as dangerous for a shorter period as a longer one. Oppose the sucker.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. No, I mean a liberal Chief Justice sooner.

If our guy is in office when Scalia/Thomas retires, we get to appoint both a new Justice and a new Chief Justice, both of whom will be liberal.

On edit: You do realize we don't have much choice on this one, right? It'll be a cold day in hell before Bush nominates a liberal and it's going to be an existing Justice. That sorta limits the options here...

[DjTj]

16. ummm...no, the CJ doesn't open up another vacancy...

If Rhenquist retires, Scalia moves up to Chief Justice, and Bush appoints one (1) new Supreme Court Judge.

The Chief Justice is one of nine and gets one vote just like every other judge.

[11 Bravo]

18. Thanks. I was alternating between reading and pulling my hair out

as I debated whether or not to point that out.

[Yupster]

21. Does the Chief Justice do anything

more than any other justice, or is it mostly a title?

[parkening]

6. The eternal struggle between

the pragmatist and the idealist.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Yep, pragmatism doesn't win often at DU.

But people must realize we're not going to get a liberal as CJ. It's just not going to happen with Bush in office.

[parkening]

13. I agree

you've just said a mouthful. Lots of folks won't want to hear it, though. Borrow my flame-proof energy shield.

[WI_DEM]

9. is it idealistic to oppose someone as bad as Scalia?

Scalia is the most right wing jurist on the court and because he is so intelligent also the most dangerous. So we are supposed to be "pragmatic" and ok him rather than opposing him as Senate Dems did in the early 70's when Nixon made two bad choices--and finally he had to appoint a moderate to get him through. That I think is both pragmatic and idealistic. And Dems could do it too if they are united due to the filibuster. We might even get one or two Reps to join in such as Chafee.

[parkening]

12. You may be right

opposition is one thing,though, and winning is another. A lot of Dems up for reelection in 06 are going to be a little gun-shy of the filibuster in light of this last election.

[JohnKleeb]

15. wasn't that moderate? Rehnquist?

Also those senate dems in the 70's had an advantage that we don't have today, a majority. I don't know if we could get any repubicans to join in though, because they all voted to confirm his adminstration picks. I agree with what you say but its a hard task.

[JohnKleeb]

14. there has to be a way in between those two I thinks

[parkening]

17. Pragmatic idealism?

or Idealistic pragmatism?

I think it boils down to how much pragmatism can we live with. Which fights are worth fighting, etc.

There is a way between the two, but you won't likely find two folks who'll agree what that way is I fear.

[JohnKleeb]

19. right

something like that.

[GRLMGC]

11. but how will Thomas vote

w/o Scalia, being that they have the same voting record? Almost identical, I believe.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. what exactly does a Chief Justice do?

I mean, is there any special powers that the CJ has?

X-Ray vision?
Super speed?
Retractable metal claws?

[Traction]

22. Swearing in a president is one duty

So is presiding over impeachment trials, among others.