I have to admit, I’m not entirely sure why Harry Reid’s tacit respect for Antonin Scalia is causing such a fuss.
If you’re just joining us, Reid said on Meet the Press that he disagrees with Scalia on many issues, but if Bush tapped Scalia to replace Rehnquist as the chief justice, Reid would probably, begrudgingly, go along.
Russert: Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: “If they” — the Bush White House — “for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they give us Antonin Scalia, that’s a little different question. I may not agree with some of his opinions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind.” Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?
Reid: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems — you’ve talked about them; every people talk — every reporter’s talked about them in town — where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this. I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.
I have to admit, I was a little surprised by the harshness of the reaction to Reid’s remarks.
Members of several liberal activist groups called Reid’s office yesterday to seek an explanation of the Democratic leader’s comments and to say they would oppose the elevation of Scalia, one of the court’s most conservative justices. “We would strongly oppose the nomination of Justice Scalia to chief justice,” said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way. Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, added that “ethics issues alone” should keep Scalia from becoming chief justice.
Five Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did not respond to telephone calls seeking comment about Reid’s statement. Nonetheless, the idea of the Democratic Senate leader backing Scalia for chief justice is anathema to many Democrats in Congress, particularly liberals. “Outrageous,” said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) when asked about Reid’s comments indicating possible support for Scalia.
I rarely find myself disagreeing with folks like Neas, Aron, and Jackson, but I think they’re overreacting here.
Just to be absolutely clear, I disagree with Antonin Scalia about virtually everything. I find him arrogant, self-righteous, rigidly ideological, right-wing, ethically-challenged, and hypocritical. Scalia’s alleged brilliance as a legal scholar is, to me, wildly exaggerated. He is a poor justice with a twisted worldview.
That said, I’m finding it hard to muster a lot of outrage at the thought of Bush “promoting” Scalia to replace Rehnquist as chief justice.
Scalia is on the court now, wreaking havoc. If Bush nominated him to be the chief justice, Scalia’s power would be exactly what it is now — one vote out of nine. Even if Bush elevated Scalia to the top slot, it’s not as if he’d wield extra power. The job would be more symbolic than anything else and considering Rehnquist’s ideological bent, we’d have effectively the same high court we have now.
What, exactly, would be so much worse if Scalia became chief justice? He’d gain some added administrative powers, a better office, and the center chair. And this would be a terrible tragedy…why?
Harry Reid indicated that he, as the Senate Dem leader, probably wouldn’t go to “war” over this. I can’t say I blame him. The real fight is over filling the vacancy a Rehnquist retirement would create, not filling the center chair. Scalia is going to be a disaster by his very presence on the court — whether he’s chief or an associate justice seems largely irrelevant.
Besides, is there any chance Dems could win this fight anyway? With 45 seats? No associate justice ever nominated to become chief justice has ever been blocked by the Senate and I have a hard time seeing how Dems could pull it off now.
Indeed, the last time they tried was instructive. In 1986, Reagan nominated then-associate justice William Rehnquist to become chief justice and many Senate Dems went all-out to derail him. They came up far short — 65 to 33. Dems spent so much time launching an unsuccessful fight to prevent Rehnquist’s promotion that they largely overlooked the fight over Reagan’s other nominee, who had been nominated to fill the associate justice vacancy. When his nomination came to the floor for a vote, the Senate deliberated for all of seven minutes before voting unanimously to approve him.
His name was Antonin Scalia.
In other words, Dems, keep your eyes on the prize. Stopping Scalia from getting a promotion is hardly as important as considering Bush’s nominee to fill the court’s next vacancy.