Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by rightwinger, Feb 17, 2011.

  1. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,557
    Thanks Received:
    19,880
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,541
    Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

    The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

    40
    Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

    133
    Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

    100
    Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,567
    Thanks Received:
    13,014
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,442
    Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

    he's an embarrassment.
     
  3. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,300
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,307
    I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,567
    Thanks Received:
    13,014
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,442
    no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

    nice try, though.
     
  5. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,300
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,307
    :lol: I hope you know I'm just kidding. I really don't know enough about him to say. But I do know that when I've said that Barack Obama is not equipped to be President I've been called a racist by many people.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,567
    Thanks Received:
    13,014
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,442
    well, about the president... your opinion isn't shared by 50% of the country. but no worries.
    i do know you're kidding though about thomas. :)

    (who still was never equipped to be a supreme court justice).
     
  7. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,924
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,932
    Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

     
  8. Ropey
    Offline

    Ropey To Life! Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,172
    Thanks Received:
    5,488
    Trophy Points:
    1,150
    Location:
    On the water, away from the warf rats.
    Ratings:
    +7,995
    He gags himself to keep himself out of trouble because he is not able. The proof is on the table.

    America will, in time, learn to remove affirmative action which should be ordered by ability, not color. The time is coming, but AA was important. But not so much anymore.

    Obama should be the proof that affirmative action's necessity is greatly lessening.

    IMHO, Thomas should never have been sent to the SC.

    Then post the shenanigans that make the thread Bulls**t please.
     
  9. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,557
    Thanks Received:
    19,880
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,541

    I would say BS also...

    It is amazing that anyone could sit for five years and not even raise a rudimentary question. Almost like an Urban Legend that is too ridiculous to believe

    If anyone can find a link contradicting the OP, I would like to see it
     
  10. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,924
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,932
    I love it one blog source says he never speaks and people just believe it! Amazing!

    Getting rid of affirmative action huh? You do know this is something Thomas is for! He believes that affirmative actions and granting contracts based on race runs contrary to the equal protection clause!

    And just like Obama becoming President had nothing to do with AA, Thomas's election to the Supeme Court had nothing to do with AA!

    .
    I read a few of Thomas's opinions and dissents and I like them. Well put together. Jillian is right he sways from Stare Decisis a bunch, but if justices never did that we would still have the Separate But Equal Doctrine! Contrary to public perception he is far from stupid. The reason he sways from stare decisis is because he is a true constitutionalist (unlike Scalia who uses that ideology when it fits his needs) and he rules based mostly on that ideology vs Stare Decisis. Case law many times needs to be overturned!

    Lastly the left has been after Thomas for years, so I doubt the truthfulness from an obvious leftist article by a leftist with an agenda!

    True Thomas doesn't speak up enough or write enough opinions, but attacking a Black man who grew up in poverty, but still doesn't believe in state supported discriminatory programs like affirmative actions, speaks volumes for his ethics!
     

Share This Page