We're Not Wild About Harry

The new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, made his debut on Meet the Press and showed us a bewildering lack of respect for Justice Clarence Thomas...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to judicial nominations. 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?

SEN. 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. So...

MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

It would have been nice to see Russert follow up with a question as to which opinions Reid found lacking, but Russert missed the chance. A rare gaffe for a normally tough interviewer.

But maybe Russert was just shocked at the brazen nature of the statement. Keep in mind, this is the same Harry Reid who once praised Robert "The Torch" Torricelli "as a man of class" -- and became the first Dem to pony up for the Torch's legal defense fund. Perhaps Scalia should bring that up if Reid attacks his ethics.

I wasn't a big fan of Thomas' nomination, because I thought it was the usual racial stereotyping that Bush had to nominate an African-American to replace an African-American justice. But Thomas was qualified, and his opinions are not an embarassment by any measure I've seen (unlike, say, Sandra Day O'Conner's ramblings). I thought maybe I was the only one wondering if Reid's opinion was based on the offensive notion that Scalia's allowed to be a conservative, while Thomas is not, due to his skin color. I figured I should give Reid the benefit of the doubt on this one. Then I heard Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, last night on Fox News, claiming that Reid was displaying a "plantation mentality" regarding Thomas. Ouch.

And lest you think it's only conservatives, Noam Scheiber at The New Republic also questions Reid...

So, if I'm understanding Reid correctly, Scalia would be okay because, even though he's really conservative, he's also really smart. Thomas is objectionable because he's both really conservative and really dumb. Since Reid doesn't provide any evidence for his low opinion of Thomas, it sounds to me like he's thoughtlessly embracing the increasingly untenable view that Thomas is an affirmative action case utterly incapable of the kind of deep (or independent) thoughts Supreme Court justices are supposed to think, which has more than a slight whiff of racism.

As Scheiber notes, Reid needs a chance to explain himself. A statement might be nice, Senator.