Bush Considers Clarence Thomas For Chief Justice??? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mobo123 · 11-08-2004, 02:21 AM

//http://www.drudgereport.com/sc.htm

Lord have mercy. Hopefully, this is one of drudge's delusional rants. This cant be true. Thomas is the most dim witted moron on the bench. The court barely allows him (or actually his clerks) to write an opinion (unless it is going to be a 9-0). Shrub probably wants him because he's the youngest, and next to Scalia, he's the most conservative and a strict constructionist. This guy barely even asks questions during open court.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 07, 2004 19:02:37 ET XXXXX

BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE

**Exclusive**

President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims.

"It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record."

One concern is the amount of political capital Bush would have to spend in congress to make the move.

A chief justice must be separately nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate, even if the person is already sitting on the court.

The need to replace Rehnquist could arise by year's end, Bush aides now believe.

Officially, Bush advisers call any Supreme Court vacancy talk premature.

Developing...

Locobot · 11-08-2004, 02:25 AM

Ain't that just a pubic hair in your coke for you. I still believe Anita Hill.

Mobo123 · 11-08-2004, 02:36 AM

amen, bro, amen.

seretogis · 11-08-2004, 07:00 AM

Why is this a surprise?

roachboy · 11-08-2004, 07:38 AM

all brakes are off for cowboy george.

he has nothing to lose in a second term--no re-election to worry about, lots of far right political groups critical to his victory that are expecting to get paid for their support. they are after roe v. wade. they are interested in creating a legal ghetto for gay people. they like war. they see bush as an instrument for inflicting a hegemony of far right christian "values" on the rest of us.

so i suspect it will only be during this term that we will be treated to the spectacle of just how far to the right bush really is.

as for the real theater--it would be almost funny to watch this theory come to fruition. scalia would surprise me less. thomas seems little more than conservative revenge fantasy--they are still steamed about the treatment of robert bork and view thomas as a near-martyr as well--this seems little more than a fantasy of delivering a fuck you to the imagined persecutors.

i too believe anita hill.

lurkette · 11-08-2004, 08:53 AM

I'd much rather see a moderate like O'Connor or Kennedy made chief justice. Clarence Thomas barely participates in most trials, and pretty much mimics whatever Scalia does/says. Frankly, Scalia would be a better choice if he weren't so obviously biased. If Bush is really serious (which I doubt) about appointing "strict constructionists,' O'Connor and Kennedy would be much better choices.

Ustwo · 11-08-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I'd much rather see a moderate like O'Connor or Kennedy made chief justice. Clarence Thomas barely participates in most trials, and pretty much mimics whatever Scalia does/says. Frankly, Scalia would be a better choice if he weren't so obviously biased. If Bush is really serious (which I doubt) about appointing "strict constructionists,' O'Connor and Kennedy would be much better choices.

I'd love to see Scalia chief justice.

A true Jacksonian Republican (which oh so ironicly led to the democrat party).

But wouldn't it be ironic if the most powerful black man in the history of the United States was a Republican? The left talks about equal rights but which party shows it with deeds?

Kadath · 11-09-2004, 05:29 AM

"But wouldn't it be ironic if the most powerful black man in the history of the United States was a Republican? The left talks about equal rights but which party shows it with deeds?"

Well, since Thomas is basically Scalia's intellectual slave...
A man promoted more on the color of his skin than his ability would be affirmative action, wouldn't it?

SirSeymour · 11-09-2004, 06:56 AM

I rather doubt this will happen. It was a tough enough fight to get Thomas appointed and I think that was a Republican Senate.

Another thing to remember is that someone else has to run for President for the Republicans in 2008. I have heard rumblings that one of those seriously considering it is the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. To the best of my knowledge, he has no ties to the far Christian right other than just being a Republican. He may very well want to reach out to more moderates and if that is the case he would be a tough obsticle for either a Thomas or Scalia appointment to the Chief Justices seat.

Not to mention that I am not convinced that being Chief Justice makes a huge difference one way or the other. It is the over all make up of the court that seems to matter most.

dy156 · 11-09-2004, 07:11 AM

I venture back onto the political board after the election...

I, too would choose Scalia over Thomas. Thomas is not Scalia's intellectual slave, though. Thomas is more likely to follow traditional Republican thought on the issues facing the court, while Scalia is intellectually a conservative, and has had some loose cannon-ish moments when he went against Rehnquist and Thomas and actually found violations of civil rights as these rights had been defined, for example. He's a better lawyer, in that he follows the existing law more than Thomas. (He's also a far better writer, and writes some of his own opinions.)
this Washington Post article
talks about one big difference in Scalia and Thomas.

I think that frankly, Scalia is more of a lawyer's judge, and a better judge than the more political Thomas. On the other hand, if the Senate Democrats fight against Scalia, it would seem to be a more principled stand, rather than fighting against Thomas, which would no doubt bring up Anita Hill stuff and, if spun correctly, could make the Democrats seem like they were trying to bring up petty personal criticisms that do not effect the performance of a justice. (Not to mention the positive spin Bush would put on nominating a minority for cheif justice.) It almost appears as if Scalia knew this was coming, and was positioning himself by making these remarks.

Additionally, if Bush were to nominate Scalia, everyone on the left would howl about the hunting trip between Scalia and Cheney again. Ironically, though Scalia is personal friends with Cheney, in his official capacity he has not been as closely aligned with the Bush administration as Thomas. Even though Scalia would be far more independent as, and a better, Chief Justice, it just makes much more political sense for Bush to nominate Thomas. More Washington BS, if you ask me.

It is also very possible that Bush will nominate someone outside the current justices, like John Roberts, discussed

here

The text of the Washington Post article, for those who are not registered.

Quote:

A Big Question About Clarence Thomas

A Big Question About Clarence Thomas

By Douglas T. Kendall
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A31

A little-noticed bombshell was dropped by Justice Antonin Scalia in a recently released biography of Justice Clarence Thomas. It poses an interesting dilemma for President Bush this election season, in that it raises the question of whether he should continue to cite Thomas as one of his model Supreme Court justices.

The evidence, of course, suggests that a repudiation of Thomas by the president is extremely unlikely. Indeed, Ken Foskett, the author of "Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas," claims that top Bush administration officials have discussed with Thomas the possibility of his succeeding William Rehnquist as chief justice.

But Scalia's pointed comments to Foskett complicate Bush's support for Thomas considerably. Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."

Stare decisis is a fancy Latin term that stands for a bedrock proposition of U.S. law: that the Supreme Court will uphold precedent and not disturb settled law without special justification. As Justice Thurgood Marshall explained for the court in 1986, stare decisis is the "means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion."

Four years ago, Rehnquist echoed Marshall in a case that reaffirmed the Miranda warning given before police interrogations, stating that stare decisis "carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some 'special justification.' "

Stare decisis is not and should not be an ironclad rule -- otherwise Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregation, would still be on the books. But almost everyone agrees that respect for the doctrine is indispensable for a Supreme Court justice. As Thomas himself explained at his confirmation hearing, "stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."

It is unlikely that any nominee of any president would be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he or she admitted to a disbelief in the doctrine of established case law. Court watchers know that Scalia's statement about Thomas goes to the heart of a jurisprudential chasm that separates the court's two most conservative justices. Scalia is fiercely conservative, but by and large he judges within the parameters of the rules laid down by predecessors. Thomas rarely appears to feel so confined.

The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law.

Far better known is Thomas's concurrence in United States v. Lopez, where, alone among the justices, he expressed a willingness to reexamine fundamental aspects of the court's jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause -- granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" -- is the principal power used by the federal government to protect civil rights, worker safety and the environment. Thomas's views, if adopted by the court, would call into question fundamental statutes in all these areas. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in a separate opinion, "the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature."

Reading a Thomas opinion can feel like hitting 100 mph on a deserted highway: thrilling (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) but still a bad idea. The excitement of approaching every constitutional question anew comes at the cost of a stab to our constitutional tradition. No president should accept this trade-off.

The writer is executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm.

Scipio · 11-09-2004, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'd love to see Scalia chief justice.

A true Jacksonian Republican (which oh so ironicly led to the democrat party).

But wouldn't it be ironic if the most powerful black man in the history of the United States was a Republican? The left talks about equal rights but which party shows it with deeds?

On this issue, it seems that Republicans are the only ones talking about race. We say he's unacceptable for various reasons, and the reply is "yeah, but he's black! you're supposed to like that!"

I don't buy it for a minute.

From what I can see, the biggest hurdle to making Thomas chief justice is that there would have to be two confirmation hearings, one for him, and one for the judge who would take his place.

Someone mentioned O'Connor and Kennedy. They're both too old if you ask me.

aliali · 11-09-2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

"But wouldn't it be ironic if the most powerful black man in the history of the United States was a Republican? The left talks about equal rights but which party shows it with deeds?"

Well, since Thomas is basically Scalia's intellectual slave...
A man promoted more on the color of his skin than his ability would be affirmative action, wouldn't it?

Even if Thomas became the chief, the most powerful black man in the history of the US would still be MLK. And, even if chief, he would not surpass Marshall. Right now, Thomas and Powell are two of the most powerful black men and both are republicans. Who is more powerful? Tiger Woods? MJ? However, it would certainly be the highest and most esteemed office held by any non-white guy in the history of the U.S.

I believe that his judicial philosophy is very defendable and it isn't a bad thing to agree with Scalia on most things. However, there is little doubt, strick that, no doubt that he got the job b.c of the color of his skin. Whether it was strickly politics or affirmative action, it was probably wrong.

aliali · 11-09-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I'd much rather see a moderate like O'Connor or Kennedy made chief justice. Clarence Thomas barely participates in most trials, and pretty much mimics whatever Scalia does/says. Frankly, Scalia would be a better choice if he weren't so obviously biased. If Bush is really serious (which I doubt) about appointing "strict constructionists,' O'Connor and Kennedy would be much better choices.

They are appeals, not trials and the fact that he doesn't ask a lot of questions during the brief oral arguments does not mean he does not participate. The overwhelming majority of the work deals with the briefs and authoring of opinions. What is Scalia biased about?

Tralls · 11-09-2004, 09:18 AM

Regarding MLK, I was discussing this the other day. Who would you all consider the the most powerful and influential African American today? I feel like a tremendous vacuum has been created with the loss of MLK, Malcom X and the decline of Muhammed Ali's health. I feel the African American community could use a strong influence sticking up for their rights and acting as a powerful role model in the role of politics, not just as a puppet for the current administration, i.e. Judge Thomas, Colin Powell, etc.

Who is it? Who are the current role models and spokespeople for African American's? Al Sharpton? I dont know. P-Diddy?! J/K Are the only ones left either athletes or rappers?!

But does anyone else feel the civil rights movement itself has slowed down dramatically and the tremendous gains that were made in the 60's have slowed down to a crawl?

back to the main subject, I think O'Conner, a Republican appointee will make the most sense b/c she is sensible and I believe Bush, unless his hands become truly tied to the Evangelicals, would ultimately prefer this choice to Scalia or Thomas.

aliali · 11-09-2004, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dy156

I venture back onto the political board after the election...

I'm glad you did and appreciate your thoughts. Do you know if Thomas was alone in those citations relating to the established precedent issue that were discussed in the article or whether or not any other justices agreed with those opinions he wrote?

Seandq · 11-09-2004, 08:51 PM

You can't make something like that up..I again TOO believe Anita Hill with his pubic hair on her Coke.

Kadath · 11-10-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

I believe that his judicial philosophy is very defendable and it isn't a bad thing to agree with Scalia on most things.

Regardless of whether you agree with Scalia or not, to have what amounts to a lapdog as a Supreme Court Justice is indeed a bad thing. I want seven brilliant jurists on the bench. Thomas just follows whatever Scalia does; you might as well give him two votes.

aliali · 11-10-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Regardless of whether you agree with Scalia or not, to have what amounts to a lapdog as a Supreme Court Justice is indeed a bad thing. I want seven brilliant jurists on the bench. Thomas just follows whatever Scalia does; you might as well give him two votes.

You might want 9 brilliant folks on the bench, although FDR wanted more. I agree that you don't want someone as chief who just follows someone else. I'm just not convinced Thomas fits that description.

Manx · 11-10-2004, 02:15 PM

Scalia is literally the son of a Fascist and he seems to have learned quite a bit from his pop.

Thomas is not Scalia's lap dog - he is worse than Scalia. Just less public about it.

Look no further than Thomas' lone vote in support of allowing the Executive to categorically declare U.S. citizens to be enemy combatants, lock them up indefinitely, without any oversight at all. Not even Rheinquist or Scalia stood with him.

aliali · 11-10-2004, 02:27 PM

So Scalia is a fascist and Thomas is worse and Thomas votes to categorically declare u.s. citizens to be enemy combatants, lock them up indenfinitely, without any oversight at all? Where is the citation for this opinion?

Manx · 11-10-2004, 02:41 PM

I said that Scalia's father was a Fascist.

Thomas' lone vote in favor of allowing the Executive to lock up U.S. citizens without oversight.

Quote:

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that as a U.S. citizen, Hamdi must have access to the U.S. legal system. All of the justices except Clarence Thomas rejected the Bush administration's contention that the federal courts could exercise no supervision over such a case.

Ustwo · 11-10-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Scalia is literally the son of a Fascist and he seems to have learned quite a bit from his pop.

Oh the irony of this bitter and troll like statement.

Scalia is one of the few to understand the limits of judicial power.

Manx · 11-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh the irony of this bitter and troll like statement.

It seems like almost every post you disagree with is a troll, if you bother to respond.

If only we were all out to get you, Ustwo, maybe that would be true.

tecoyah · 11-10-2004, 07:59 PM

Please be careful how this progresses......

Dale Kemp · 11-10-2004, 08:05 PM

Yeh, I'd sure be pleased to see Justice Thomas become the chief justice. Go for it, Mr. President!

Kadath · 11-10-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aliali

You might want 9 brilliant folks on the bench, although FDR wanted more.

I wish I could blame this on inebriation or something, but I was just stupid here.

aliali · 11-12-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I said that Scalia's father was a Fascist.

[

What's the point? Do you need to know what my dad is/was to put my comments or thoughts into perspective.

aliali · 11-12-2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I said that Scalia's father was a Fascist.

Thomas' lone vote in favor of allowing the Executive to lock up U.S. citizens without oversight.

Neither your comments, nor the article cited give the accurate picture of the Court's opinions in that case. The majority agreed that enemy combatants may be held as the President believes, but that in this case, the individual at issue be given a meanful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention. Three justices, not just one, disagreed with this conclusion. There is disagreement on how the determination is made as to who is an enemy combatant and who, if anyone, should review the decision that is made. Justice Thomas believed that the Court is not situated or equipped to reviews these determinations. He did, however, state that Congress has the power to add procedural protections in this circumstance.

This case is also a good rebuttal to those who argue that Thomas is simply Scalia's parrot. If you read his opinion, he takes great issue with multiple aspects of Scalia's analysis.

11-08-2004, 02:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mobo123 Insane	Bush Considers Clarence Thomas For Chief Justice??? //http://www.drudgereport.com/sc.htm Lord have mercy. Hopefully, this is one of drudge's delusional rants. This cant be true. Thomas is the most dim witted moron on the bench. The court barely allows him (or actually his clerks) to write an opinion (unless it is going to be a 9-0). Shrub probably wants him because he's the youngest, and next to Scalia, he's the most conservative and a strict constructionist. This guy barely even asks questions during open court. XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 07, 2004 19:02:37 ET XXXXX BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE Exclusive President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims. "It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record." One concern is the amount of political capital Bush would have to spend in congress to make the move. A chief justice must be separately nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate, even if the person is already sitting on the court. The need to replace Rehnquist could arise by year's end, Bush aides now believe. Officially, Bush advisers call any Supreme Court vacancy talk premature. Developing...

11-08-2004, 07:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Why is this a surprise? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

11-08-2004, 07:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	all brakes are off for cowboy george. he has nothing to lose in a second term--no re-election to worry about, lots of far right political groups critical to his victory that are expecting to get paid for their support. they are after roe v. wade. they are interested in creating a legal ghetto for gay people. they like war. they see bush as an instrument for inflicting a hegemony of far right christian "values" on the rest of us. so i suspect it will only be during this term that we will be treated to the spectacle of just how far to the right bush really is. as for the real theater--it would be almost funny to watch this theory come to fruition. scalia would surprise me less. thomas seems little more than conservative revenge fantasy--they are still steamed about the treatment of robert bork and view thomas as a near-martyr as well--this seems little more than a fantasy of delivering a fuck you to the imagined persecutors. i too believe anita hill. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2004, 08:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I'd much rather see a moderate like O'Connor or Kennedy made chief justice. Clarence Thomas barely participates in most trials, and pretty much mimics whatever Scalia does/says. Frankly, Scalia would be a better choice if he weren't so obviously biased. If Bush is really serious (which I doubt) about appointing "strict constructionists,' O'Connor and Kennedy would be much better choices. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

11-09-2004, 05:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	"But wouldn't it be ironic if the most powerful black man in the history of the United States was a Republican? The left talks about equal rights but which party shows it with deeds?" Well, since Thomas is basically Scalia's intellectual slave... A man promoted more on the color of his skin than his ability would be affirmative action, wouldn't it? __________________ it's quiet in here

11-08-2004, 02:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Ain't that just a pubic hair in your coke for you. I still believe Anita Hill.

11-08-2004, 02:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mobo123 Insane	amen, bro, amen.

11-09-2004, 06:56 AM	#9 (permalink)
SirSeymour Ambling Toward the Light Location: The Early 16th Century	I rather doubt this will happen. It was a tough enough fight to get Thomas appointed and I think that was a Republican Senate. Another thing to remember is that someone else has to run for President for the Republicans in 2008. I have heard rumblings that one of those seriously considering it is the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. To the best of my knowledge, he has no ties to the far Christian right other than just being a Republican. He may very well want to reach out to more moderates and if that is the case he would be a tough obsticle for either a Thomas or Scalia appointment to the Chief Justices seat. Not to mention that I am not convinced that being Chief Justice makes a huge difference one way or the other. It is the over all make up of the court that seems to matter most. __________________ SQL query SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 Zero rows returned....

11-09-2004, 09:18 AM	#14 (permalink)
Tralls Crazy	Regarding MLK, I was discussing this the other day. Who would you all consider the the most powerful and influential African American today? I feel like a tremendous vacuum has been created with the loss of MLK, Malcom X and the decline of Muhammed Ali's health. I feel the African American community could use a strong influence sticking up for their rights and acting as a powerful role model in the role of politics, not just as a puppet for the current administration, i.e. Judge Thomas, Colin Powell, etc. Who is it? Who are the current role models and spokespeople for African American's? Al Sharpton? I dont know. P-Diddy?! J/K Are the only ones left either athletes or rappers?! But does anyone else feel the civil rights movement itself has slowed down dramatically and the tremendous gains that were made in the 60's have slowed down to a crawl? back to the main subject, I think O'Conner, a Republican appointee will make the most sense b/c she is sensible and I believe Bush, unless his hands become truly tied to the Evangelicals, would ultimately prefer this choice to Scalia or Thomas. __________________ "I pledge my grievance to the flag" - Pearl Jam Last edited by Tralls; 11-09-2004 at 09:20 AM..

11-09-2004, 08:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
Seandq Tilted Location: Orlando, FL	You can't make something like that up..I again TOO believe Anita Hill with his pubic hair on her Coke.

11-10-2004, 02:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Scalia is literally the son of a Fascist and he seems to have learned quite a bit from his pop. Thomas is not Scalia's lap dog - he is worse than Scalia. Just less public about it. Look no further than Thomas' lone vote in support of allowing the Executive to categorically declare U.S. citizens to be enemy combatants, lock them up indefinitely, without any oversight at all. Not even Rheinquist or Scalia stood with him.

11-10-2004, 02:27 PM	#20 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	So Scalia is a fascist and Thomas is worse and Thomas votes to categorically declare u.s. citizens to be enemy combatants, lock them up indenfinitely, without any oversight at all? Where is the citation for this opinion?

11-10-2004, 07:59 PM	#24 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Careful Please be careful how this progresses...... __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-10-2004, 08:05 PM	#25 (permalink)
Dale Kemp Crazy Location: New Mexico	Yeh, I'd sure be pleased to see Justice Thomas become the chief justice. Go for it, Mr. President! __________________ Trueheart