Clarence Thomas -- The Man Whom You Cannot Tell Whether He Is There

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Madeline, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

    The Lone Dissenter - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

    Is Clarence Thomas' silence adding or detracting value to the SCOTUS?

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. M14 Shooter
    Online

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,116
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    What a fallacious, self-defeating farce.
    Whoever wrote this started with a conclusion and tried to find 'facts' to fit it.
    How ironic...

    Yes. His duty, after all, is to judge the case on it merits. Nothing in that necessitates that he ask any questions or make any comment during oral argument.

    False dichotomy. Not ansking questions in no way necessitates that a decision regarding the case has already been made.

    Given the above.... so what?

    "Truly significant"... according to whom?
    And... so what? Even if true, how is that significant?

    Exactly, how?

    There is NO evidence presented here that he is not, and does not.

    And so, a justice has the responsibility to ask questions... in order to assist the advocates in doing so? Isn't that -their- responsibility?

    That's opposing council's responsibility, not the court's.

    This is silly - there's no reason do to this, given that they deliberate the issue.
    Further, to 'preview' your reasoning necessitates that you have predisposed yourself to a certain line of reasoning - that is, you have already gone a long way to making up your mind - if you havent done so comepletely.

    Again: This burden lies - completely- on the parties involved in the case.
    To 'guide' the parties necessitates that you have a certain way you'd like the case to go.

    To persuade others means that you have determined your position in the matter
    Just a few lines ago, Thomas was accused of having his mind already made up, with said accusation the cornerstone of an argument against him.
    :confused:

    The "description" is self-defeating, and hinges on a false premise.

    As is anyone that attempts to pursuade the other justices during ral argument or 'guide' the parties to the case in one direction or the other.
    Given the standard set above, iconoclasty is a -requirement- of a justice on the Supreme court.

    If you think they are unsound, why follow them?
    If precedent should -always- be followed, why does Plessey not still stand?

    :roll:
    As if this is necessary

    :roll:
    As if this means anything.

    Yes... because -you- can speak to the reasoning behind the majority as to why they choose who they choose to write the opinion.

    Thomas is silent during deliberation? How do you know?
    Oh... you mean during oral arguments.
    False premise, that oral arguments exist for justices to 'win over' other justices - something they can do only if they have made up their minds before hearing all the arguments presented.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011
  3. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

    What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?
     
  4. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    no wonder hes silent...if he speaks hes a jackass, if hes doesn't hes subject to scrutiny anyway.......can't win.
     
  5. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    So, you admit Thomas is a jackass, Trajan?
     
  6. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...:eusa_eh:or thats not what I intended.
     
  7. CMike
    Offline

    CMike Zionist, proud to be

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,900
    Thanks Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,408
    The way you know he is there is by his vote.

    He doesn't need to steal a stage or spew off rhetoric.
     
  8. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,404
    Thanks Received:
    19,855
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,438
    Thomas is the Cal Ripken of SCOTUS

    His record of being afraid to ask questions will last forever
     
  9. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    It would appear Thomas is the placeholder of SCOTUS. He says nothing, and he writes almost nothing. As I said, the man whom you almost cannot tell whether he is there.
     
  10. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Uh, 235 years of jurisprudence says he does. We reasonably expect leadership and legal philosophy from our Justices. Thomas is skipping out on his duties, IMO.
     

Share This Page