My bet is on Biden

It came as something of a surprise to me to hear Barack Obama take aim at fellow African American.  But take aim he did at the Saddleback Church on Saturday when he said Clarence Thomas was the justice he would not have nominated to the Supreme Court.  This was in response to the question from Pastor Rick Warren who arranged the forum for it.  Thomas was not a “strong enough jurist” for the job, said Obama. 

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

It makes some sense now, why he did it.  Senator Joe Biden of Delaware is on the Obama short list for running mate. 

The Obama campaign is also completing a highly secretive vice presidential selection process in which the front-runners are believed to be Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.

What might that have to do with the shot he took at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?  Kathryn Jean Lopez reminds us of what Clarence Thomas thinks of Joe Biden.  She does so using quotes from his autobiography, My Grandfather's Son.  This one describes Biden's performance at Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “ ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would . . . strike down laws restricting property right.’ ” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now, it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”

Since I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “it has been quite some time since I have read Professor Macedo. . . . But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court or that we should have any form of activism on the Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer. Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearings had loaded all of my speeches into a computer, and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.

Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “Smiling Faces Sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing, I’d have to keep my guard up.

I think Biden is the guy Obama wants, but Clarence Thomas reveals Biden as a nothing more than a pretend friend.  Thomas had to be discredited.  I'm betting on Biden for running mate.

Comments

[David Holliday]

You nailed it. Good job.

[PJ Smith]

Congrats Tom, I don't recall anyone else catching on the way you did!

So it is Biden, master of the snarky comment. I can't think of a more repulsive choice for the big "O".

[Tom Bowler]

Actually, Kathryn Jean Lopez was first to suggest that possibility in the post that carried the quotes from My Grandfather's Son. It wasn't until I went back to read her poat again that I noticed the headline "Joe for Veep". And while I will agree with her when she says, "It's a winning ticket for the GOP," it's not quite the Dream Ticket.