A Stitch in Haste

The AP is reporting that the White House has discussed with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas the possibility of his replacing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom many expect to announce his retirement shortly after Bush's re-election (assuming that happens):

Thomas has recovered from his bitter 1991 confirmation hearings, and is comfortable in his role on the court as a conservative iconoclast, [biographer] 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. 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.

White House spokeswoman Erin Healy would not comment. "There are no vacancies on the court at this time," she said.

I am not a big fan of Clarence Thomas --who is most definitely not a libertarian, at least not anymore. (Word of advice: when conservatives praise someone for being "libertarian," run for the hills.) I especially reject his preference for "original intent" interpretation over "plain language" reading of the Constitution and legislation, and also his complete renunciation, like Scalia, of substantive due process. (A good summary of his general political views can be found here.)

This is exactly why I think it would be good for him to be elevated to Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice, qua Justice, has no extra power or influence over the Court, with one puny exception: If he is in the majority on a case, then he gets to decide who writes the opinion. Big whoop.

On the other hand, the Chief Justice has many more administrative and bureaucratic responsibilities than his Associate Justice colleagues:

By statute, the Chief Justice presides over the Judicial Conference (28 U.S.C. § 331), selects the director and deputy director of the Administrative Office (28 U.S.C. § 601), chairs the Board of the Federal Judicial Center (28 U.S.C. § 621(a)(1)), designates judges to serve on the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (28 U.S.C. § 1407 (d)) and on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (50 U.S.C. § 1803 (a)), and assigns district and circuit judges to serve temporarily in circuits other than their own (28 U.S.C. §§ 291–292). These statutory duties give rise to other responsibilities: The Chief Justice serves as the federal judiciary’s ultimate advocate and spokesperson with respect to legislation affecting administration of the federal courts—a duty that has become routine since William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice (1921–1930). The Chief Justice also appoints the some 200 members of the extensive committee system of the Judicial Conference. Source.

(And who knows...maybe we'll have another impeachment trial.)

As the saying goes: "If you don't like someone's performance, then kick him upstairs."