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

[Gunny]

WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence.

A week from Tuesday [on February 22, 2011], when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.”

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

Five years having passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question at oral argument, we can turn our attention to a more significant anniversary that may arrive this summer. Barring any surprises, this June will mark the end of Justice Thomas’s 20th term on the Supreme Court without writing a truly significant majority opinion. That second milestone goes a long way toward explaining, and justifying, the first.

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas is open to persuasion or wants to persuade others.

Oral argument is not a useless exercise. It is an occasion for the advocates to frame the stakes of their arguments in terms too easily obscured by the dense briefing they supply to the court in advance. It allows the justices to obtain direct answers from lawyers on questions the lawyers evaded, whether artfully or inadvertently, in their papers. It also lets the justices preview their reasoning to their colleagues, with whom they might not have discussed the case in advance. That preview then enables both the lawyers and the other justices either to support or to interrogate an argument that might not have surfaced previously.

Alas, some of these uses for oral argument are in tension with each other. Anyone who has observed a recent Supreme Court argument will note that even experienced advocates can at times have difficulty completing a sentence, much less clarifying dozens of pages of briefing, without constant, often unrelated, sometimes simultaneous questioning from the bench. Justice Thomas is right that adding one more voice to the noise would not help matters.

More generally, though, many of the reasons for oral argument assume that the justices are either keen to persuade others of their views or are open to persuasion themselves. There is little evidence that Justice Thomas fits this description. He is a judicial iconoclast, opposed to following constitutional precedents with which he disagrees and unwilling to moderate his positions to achieve consensus. He is the court’s most frequent lone dissenter, and to assign an important majority opinion to him is to risk losing your majority because of his uncompromising language.

It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to.

The Lone Dissenter - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

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

Your thoughts?

Try keeping your leftwingnut rants on one topic to ONE thread, huh, TruthDoesntMatter Jr ....

 

[BenNatuf]

Just thought this POS post deserved a little more scrutiny so other posters could gauge for themselves the sheer hypocricy and idiocy of the poster

why does a 12 year old who knows nothing about law think he can call me names and insult my ability?

Your complaint here rings hollow, as I've already displayed in this thread and others that my understanding of the law, the courts, and court politics surpasses you're own. I don't know what you do in the real world, and I don't know how well you do it, but if your posts here are any evedence of your legal skills, it doesn't say much for you. Let me clear something up for you, when they said you could "practice" law they didn't mean to keep trying until you were barely adequate. Far from showing any kind of analytic leagl mind you show yourself to be driven by ideology and your wish for things to mean what you want them to instead of what reason dictates they clearly do. Your legal philosophy of what makes a good jurist seems to be driven by whether or not you agree with their decissions and you castigate one in particular for a supposed foible that you later catigate him for not having, exposing for all to see the disingenuouos nature of your critisisms.

You claimed to "hate" Thomas because of his failure to follow precedent and stare decisis, you then expose yourself as false by complaining of his decission in Citizens United where he followed precedent and stare decisis. So this obviously isn't the source of your "hate". Obviously it must be 'something else". It is clear by the flip flopping and zig zagging nature of you support for the philosphy that it's the ideology behind a decission that is the source of your "hate". That however does not explain why you have a particular hatred for this one man, as lots of decissions on the court likely offend your ideological sensibilities. So what is it that we're left with to discern as the source of your particularly virulent hatred of this one man? What is it thats "different" about him?

Could it be his life story, rising from a share cropping dirt farmer to the hieght of the legal profession? Would be odd, but there are people out there who would envy his success and allow that to turn to hatred if they thought he didn't "belong there" (which of course you have said). You attempted to claim his intellect precludes him (stupid was the word I believe). That bit of tripe is easily refuted by his numerous written opinions which as far as I know he writes himself (unlike other jurists who have their clerks do it for them). You attempt to assert that his not posturing in oral arguments is evedence of his stupiduty, but that only exposes your own ignorance of the process and what actually is required vs what you think should be required.

You attempt to disgustingly assert he is a slave to Scalia's opinions even though it can be clearly demonstrated that he is no more ideologically tied to scalia than any other two like minded justices are tied to each other (Ginsberg/Bryer, Alito/Roberts); and, I might add, as if who voted with him had any bearing on the rightness of his opinions (it doesn't). All of your stated reasons for hating him are shown to be created out of your own desire to create a justification for yourself and then attempt to persuade others that your rationalization of your hatred is just. (another clue for you... justification and just are not the same).

I am left with little else to judge the reason for your irrational singling out this one man for particularly virulent hatred apparently due to his ideology, for whom for others you reserve a lesser hatred, except the obvious. He has rejected your claim of racial ownership on his opinion. And to be clear expecting a man to accept the chains of comformity on his opinions out of some "gratitude" for what you think those who think like you have done for his race is about as racist as you can get, it amounts to intellectual slavery, a slavery of the mind that is equally repugnant to any yoke of servitude of the body in our nations past. Apparently a man is not allowed to throw off the chains of the bondage of your ideology without suffering the sting of the whip of your indignation at his rebellion of thought. The audacity of the man... thinking for himself!

And then have the unimittigated gaul and arrogance to attempt to castigate me for calling you names instead of engaging in debate when anyone can see for themselves which "child" began the exchange and refuses to debate, "dunce".

pretty funny, little boy.

**sigh**

come back when you know something. or are you just mentally ill?

Is this what your arguments are like for your clients? Do you not see the irony of your postings in light of this childish retort? One of us certainly is acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum and its pretty clear which one.

and that 4 points really stung. oh noooooooo.

You say this as if I had any control over the number of points I could deduct from you (or even cared). It's not the number baby... its the doing. It is particularly funny since you've attempted to use your massive "point strength" to do me "harm" (it really is funny) by negging me as you have over and over again, and apparently enlisting your "freinds" to do likewise, in some childish game of "get the nooB" as if your opinion even mattered to me. Given the oft wrong nature of your postings getting negged by you is an affirmation of the rightness of my arguments, especially in light of the fact that you don't even attempt to refute them but instead spend your keystrokes in an apparent attempt to hurt my "feelings" with childish and inane personal attacks. I respond to your childish posts because it gives me joy to expose your hypocracies and idiocies and nothing more.

 

[Liability]

It is amazing that no other Justice in 40 years has gone even a year without speaking. Thomas must have skills that no other Justice has managed

Repeating the petty pointless of this thread does nothing to support your "thesis" that asking "questions" at the oral argument stage does anything to alter or even shape any judicial opinions.

If you insist on pretending to believe that the briefs and the prior proceedings -- as well as precedent and a judge's understanding of the Constitutional requirements of a case -- are somehow not quite enough to serve their purpose, and that "oral arguments" and "questions" are the key determining factors, then you are already far too simplisitc to be persuaded of how silly your position is.

But your position is not just silly. It's stupid.

I'm merely pointing out that Thomas is a uniquely qualified individual. He has managed to accomplish something that hasn't been done in 40 years (and that was one year, not five). He obviously is able to form opinions without having to ask a single question while other judges are asking questions one every 30 seconds

No you are not "pointing" any such thing out. You are making a contention. Your contentions and "facts" which can be pointed out are not the same thing.

Your implicit premise is that it is somehow necessary for a qualified jurist to "ask questions" at the oral argument stage, after a lengthy litigation and appellate review process, before such a "qualified" jurist could possibly (or reasonably) reach a conclusion.

Your contention is ridiculous.

Asking "questions" at the oral argument stage is often nothing but a show-boating practice.

If a judge hasn't been able to come to the conclusion by then, then perhaps the judge should consider another line of work.

Prior to the oral argument stage, the case got tried (usually) and the appellate advocacy has frequently taken it through several layers of prior court review of the claims and the legal intricacies. Briefs have been filed and responded to, not just once, but often several times. AND, the SCOTUS itself will have gotten some pretty finely tuned briefs. They briefs and prior arguments have focused on case law and the jurists and their clerks will (hopefully) have waded through the precedents cite.

If the judge hasn't reached a conclusion based on all of that as the judge is informed by his own understanding of the law and the Constitutional requirements, then it's a safe bet oral arguments aren't going to clear anything else up, either. But that's silly. The oral arguments don't clear anything up. They may telegraph the inclinations of the jurist asking the questions. They may be designed to make the advocate for the side the judge is inclined to rule against squirm. But they aren't usually designed to help the judge "reach" a decision by that point.

 

[CMike]

silly liberal, there is no contradiction.

Citizens united struck down a law by sticking with precedent (stare decisis) as prior courts had found the assemblage of persons known as a coporation did not surrender their other 1st amendment rights by virtue of thier assembladge

Heller struck down a law through incorporation doctine (stare decisis) by sticking with the constitution where there was no previous precedent, as no previous court had ever ruled on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

Perhaps you need some context... it's almost impossible for a justice to be "activist" in striking down a law. As to be "activist" they would almost certainly have to insert something into it that was not there before they did it. The exception would be in lower courts which strike down laws against prior precedent, which they are supposed to be bound to follow.

Again..you are incorrect on both counts. Citizens United spoke to a particular instance..and the judges expanded the ruling to be global. They did not stick with precedence as well, since the precedence is to limit contributions, right down to McCain-Feingold. So not only were they activist in this account, they were pretty radical about the whole matter.

Same with Heller, for very much the same reasons.

False. Citizens United was not about corporations contributing to a campaign, it was about them spending their own money on their own commercials.

And I am correct on heller.

And yes, it did overturn part of mclame feingold, it should have followed precedent and overturned it the first time.

The reason for the ruling makes perfect sense.

Newspapers are part of corporations and they can endorse candidates. With the Internet it's even more blurred what is just a corporation and what is media.

Therefore, the court ruled that corporations have a right to advertise to support a particular candidate.

 

[BenNatuf]

Activists? Thats hilarious.

I can't think of anything more activist then the "Citizen's United" case...except maybe Heller. Oh wait..there was Gore v. Bush. Scalia essentially said that was a one time emergency decision, never to be used again..

In Citizen's United they merely upheld stare decisis. Corporations have been recognized as "citizens" by the SCOTUS going back to the 19th century.

As far as Heller goes, your accusation is absurd and unfounded. You very clearly don't know what judicial activism is.

None of these libs seem to, except that they all seem to think it means whatever the court does they don't agree with.

 

[CMike]

Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.

not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.

finding that corporations are people for first amendment purposes was the most activist decision i can recall in my lifetime.

What are they if not people? Are unions people?

Also, what about newspapers? Are they people?

 

[BenNatuf]

Again..you are incorrect on both counts. Citizens United spoke to a particular instance..and the judges expanded the ruling to be global. They did not stick with precedence as well, since the precedence is to limit contributions, right down to McCain-Feingold. So not only were they activist in this account, they were pretty radical about the whole matter.

Same with Heller, for very much the same reasons.

False. Citizens United was not about corporations contributing to a campaign, it was about them spending their own money on their own commercials.

And I am correct on heller.

And yes, it did overturn part of mclame feingold, it should have followed precedent and overturned it the first time.

The reason for the ruling makes perfect sense.

Newspapers are part of corporations and they can endorse candidates. With the Internet it's even more blurred what is just a corporation and what is media.

Therefore, the court ruled that corporations have a right to advertise to support a particular candidate.

yep. The only thing these libs know is that their masters have said "evil corporations" will be free to "buy elections". The whole concept that the government had any authority to limit the speach of private entities in the first place is rediculous, especially in the realm of the most protected of speech... POLITCAL speech.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I can't think of anything more activist then the "Citizen's United" case...except maybe Heller. Oh wait..there was Gore v. Bush. Scalia essentially said that was a one time emergency decision, never to be used again..

In Citizen's United they merely upheld stare decisis. Corporations have been recognized as "citizens" by the SCOTUS going back to the 19th century.

As far as Heller goes, your accusation is absurd and unfounded. You very clearly don't know what judicial activism is.

Citizen's United went beyond the initial question of whether or not the film that was shown during an election season was in fact, a campaign expenditure to reverse almost a century of law concerning the role and influence of wealth in regards to the election process.

Heller trumped the state's right to regulate hand guns.

Of course both were activism. And legislatiing from the bench.

States do not have the right to ban the public from having hand guns, the way D.C. was. That decision is not judicial activism. It was applying the Constitution as written, plain and simple.

Judicial activism is when a judge takes it upon himself to inject a meaning into a clause of the Constitution that has never meant what he says it does in the 200 years of its existence. That did not happen in neither Heller nor Citizen's United.

 

[driveby]

WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence.

A week from Tuesday [on February 22, 2011], when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.”

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

Five years having passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question at oral argument, we can turn our attention to a more significant anniversary that may arrive this summer. Barring any surprises, this June will mark the end of Justice Thomas’s 20th term on the Supreme Court without writing a truly significant majority opinion. That second milestone goes a long way toward explaining, and justifying, the first.

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas is open to persuasion or wants to persuade others.

Oral argument is not a useless exercise. It is an occasion for the advocates to frame the stakes of their arguments in terms too easily obscured by the dense briefing they supply to the court in advance. It allows the justices to obtain direct answers from lawyers on questions the lawyers evaded, whether artfully or inadvertently, in their papers. It also lets the justices preview their reasoning to their colleagues, with whom they might not have discussed the case in advance. That preview then enables both the lawyers and the other justices either to support or to interrogate an argument that might not have surfaced previously.

Alas, some of these uses for oral argument are in tension with each other. Anyone who has observed a recent Supreme Court argument will note that even experienced advocates can at times have difficulty completing a sentence, much less clarifying dozens of pages of briefing, without constant, often unrelated, sometimes simultaneous questioning from the bench. Justice Thomas is right that adding one more voice to the noise would not help matters.

More generally, though, many of the reasons for oral argument assume that the justices are either keen to persuade others of their views or are open to persuasion themselves. There is little evidence that Justice Thomas fits this description. He is a judicial iconoclast, opposed to following constitutional precedents with which he disagrees and unwilling to moderate his positions to achieve consensus. He is the court’s most frequent lone dissenter, and to assign an important majority opinion to him is to risk losing your majority because of his uncompromising language.

It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to.

The Lone Dissenter - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

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

Your thoughts?

Another racist piece from the NYSlimes..........