CHIEF JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS? ARGHHHHHHHH!

[newscaster]

oh, please god, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.

Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.

SNIP

Thomas initially refused Foskett's request for interviews, but later spoke to the author both on and off the record.

SNIP

Thomas has recovered from his bitter 1991 confirmation hearings, and is comfortable in his role on the court as a conservative iconoclast, Foskett said. Thomas is the youngest of the justices at 56 and could remain on the court for decades.
Whether he is elevated to chief justice "all depends on Bush being re-elected," Foskett said.

SNIP

Thomas' promotion to the court's top job would also depend on the exit of his boss, 79-year-old Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Rehnquist is not expected to retire before the November presidential election, but might do so in a second Bush term. The White House has a short list of candidates for any Supreme Court vacancy, and has presumably interviewed several potential nominees to succeed Rehnquist.

[Dookus]

1. not as long as there are 41 Democratic senators

[Spinzonner]

2. Over Tony's dead body

[delhurgo]

3. I think this 'news' is probably politically motivated...an attempt by

the Bush campaign to reach out to black voters.

Actually, Thomas may not be that bad. I mean, he could be better - but he's alot better than, say, Scalia.

Thomas surprised me recently by voting against the Internet Protection Act that would have made it a crime for an internet site to post 'adult material' without 'verifying' the age of all its visitors. It would have effected everything from porn, to forums, to medical sites, etc... Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sites probably would have been taken down. Anyhow, it was judged unconstitutional by one vote - it was 5 to 4. Thomas voted against the act in the case, and Breyer (a Clinton appt) voted for it. So Thomas went against his own supporters (religious conservatives) and was the deciding vote for free speech.

So I'm beginning to wonder if Thomas may have at least some potential to be a decent judge, and I'm a little more skeptical of Breyer now.