← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 17511 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-03-25
2005-03-25 13:06 | User Profile
Why do you think the neo cons are rallying for Thomas over Scalia?
After all, Scalia has the most brilliant legal mind in America.
2005-03-25 13:19 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
What are you talking about? Do you mean Thomas instead of Thompson?
2005-03-25 13:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Gabrielle,
What are you talking about? Do you mean Thomas instead of Thompson?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, I meant Thomas....thank you for correcting me. :)
2005-03-25 13:47 | User Profile
You're welcome, Gabrielle.
I haven't been following this too closely. If you have some examples please post them.
2005-03-25 15:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]You're welcome, Gabrielle.
I haven't been following this too closely. If you have some examples please post them.[/QUOTE]
For instance, the neo con magazine ‘NewsMax’ has Scalia on their front cover to sell issues, but inside they quite plainly endorsed Thomas as their choice. They call him “The Conservative’s Conservative”, etc.
Also, I have read different articles elsewhere that clearly show Thomas is their first choice.
Is it because he is black?
2005-03-25 15:50 | User Profile
I don't know about this. Thomas and Scalia almost always vote the same way. The only reasons I can think to choose Thomas would be political: he's black--untouchable in the confirmation process--and he's younger and so could be el Jefe for longer.
2005-03-25 16:39 | User Profile
There are important differences between the two. Most important to the Administration is probably Scalia's scathing dissent in the Hamdi case. Scalia wrote that that the government should follow the Constitution and either suspend the writ of habaes corpus or charge Hamdi with treason. The government wanted to hold Hamdi indefinitely without charging him and without any due process. The majority instituted some procedural safeguards.
Thomas also wrote a dissent but completely sided with the government, essentially saying it could do anything in a time of war. Scalia's dissent was brilliant and Thomas' was lacking.
The other significant difference is that Scalia gives a lot of deference to precedent, while Thomas has made known that he gives little deference to precedent if he thinks the precedent is wrong. In a legal sense, Thomas' position is quite radical, but considering the number of bad decisions that have been handed down since the 50s, it's an attractive position for many.
2005-03-25 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=random]There are important differences between the two. Most important to the Administration is probably Scalia's scathing dissent in the Hamdi case. Scalia wrote that that the government should follow the Constitution and either suspend the writ of habaes corpus or charge Hamdi with treason. The government wanted to hold Hamdi indefinitely without charging him and without any due process. The majority instituted some procedural safeguards.
Thomas also wrote a dissent but completely sided with the government, essentially saying it could do anything in a time of war. Scalia's dissent was brilliant and Thomas' was lacking.
The other significant difference is that Scalia gives a lot of deference to precedent, while Thomas has made known that he gives little deference to precedent if he thinks the precedent is wrong. In a legal sense, Thomas' position is quite radical, but considering the number of bad decisions that have been handed down since the 50s, it's an attractive position for many.[/QUOTE] Good info, thanks.