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

[Madeline]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

I wouldn't complain about Thomas...

Baby Ruth Ginsberg hasn't really had a coherent thought since a bad acid trip in 1971....

Really? Well then fuck, who IS writing?

BTW, seems Columbia Law School found some important decisions she has written.

Columbia Law School : Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Opinions

 

[Madeline]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

^ Yet another liberal bit of dishonesty that cannot be supported.

Very surprising that such bullshit is spouted by a person with the intellectual caliber and integrity of leftwinger.

Oh wait.

No. That's not surprising at all. Nevermind.

You tell me you're a lawyer, Liability.

Shouldn't you be responding on here like one?

 

[Jroc]

I sense we may come to disagree on some issues, M14, LOL. However, set that aside. Lemme ask you, which Justices do you admire? I am a huge fan of Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. I could not be, had any of them chosen to never speak and never write.

Thomas' contribution has, you must admit, been little more than voting. Frankly, you and I could vote. We never/rarely get to see his reasoning, and he has almost no body of work we can look to for his Giant Legal Mind. He's a cheat, IMO.

The function of the Supreme Court is not to decide a specific case. It is to interpret the constitution so that in future, similarly situated persons can order their conduct accordingly. Thomas does not add to the quantum of material any of us can look to for this purpose.

We already coverd this. Do you search a subject before you start a thread? oh and your boy Thurgood Marshall was pretty quiet himself, read through this thread then get back to me.... thanks

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/155623-clarence-thomas-5-year-silence-9.html

WTF? This is your first post to this thread, Jroc. You have a point, make it. You dun like a thread, skip it.

Dun be an asshole.

Who’s being an "asshole" I just noticed the damn thread and yes it bothers me when people make assumptions and attempt to defame a good man like Clarence Thomas.

 

[Madeline]

We already coverd this. Do you search a subject before you start a thread? oh and your boy Thurgood Marshall was pretty quiet himself, read through this thread then get back to me.... thanks

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/155623-clarence-thomas-5-year-silence-9.html

WTF? This is your first post to this thread, Jroc. You have a point, make it. You dun like a thread, skip it.

Dun be an asshole.

Who’s being an "asshole" I just noticed the damn thread and yes it bothers me when people make assumptions and attempt to defame a good man like Clarence Thomas.

I did not defame Thomas. I insulted him. I criticized him.

There's a difference.

 

[Madeline]

Could it possibly get any worse? It just recently came to light that
so-called "Citizens United", nothing more than a corporate sponsored
astroturf lobbying organization, the very same group he ruled in
favor of to decimate our campaign finance laws last year, was the
driving force in paying for and running ads to promote the
confirmation of Thomas himself to the Supreme Court.

The standard for a justice to step aside from hearing a particular
case is supposed to be whether there might be an "appearance of
impartiality". Yet here we have a member of the Supreme Court handing
decisions to the people who were instrumental in putting him on the
court in the first place. It is simply unacceptable to have a someone
sitting on the Supreme Court with such patent contempt for simple
fairness.

Impeach Thomas Action Page:

Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas For Ruling In Favor Of His Own Campaign Contributors

That was received by me as an email from a progressive action group known as The Pen.

From Time Magazine, 1991:

Washington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.

The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."

Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it.

"Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."

The commercials, shown only in Washington at a cost of about $100,000, have reaped millions of dollars' worth of free publicity through network television and print-media reproductions that have accompanied news stories about the flap. That probably was the intent all along.

Not-So-Hidden Persuaders - TIME

I have to say, I agree. Time to impeach Thomas.

What say you?

(I swear, I am not piling up the Thomas threads...this shit really did come on the same day.)

 

[AllieBaba]

The OP is ungrammatical, automatic NAY!

 

[Madeline]

The OP is ungrammatical, automatic NAY!

Ya, that was bad. I fixed it.

Thankies!

 

[rightwinger]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

^ Yet another liberal bit of dishonesty that cannot be supported.

Very surprising that such bullshit is spouted by a person with the intellectual caliber and integrity of leftwinger.

Oh wait.

No. That's not surprising at all. Nevermind.

Honestly, if any questions need to be asked, they can be asked by Scalia. What good would it do for Thomas to ask questions that will not influence how he and Scalia votes.

If Thomas wants an opinion....Scalia will give it to him

 

[California Girl]

So, you admit Thomas is a jackass, Trajan?

Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...or thats not what I intended.

Maddie struggles with basic comprehension.... and, sadly, allows her own opinion to outweigh any facts that do not support it. Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.

 

[CMike]

The way you know he is there is by his vote.

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

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.

No, we expect them to interpret laws correctly by their rulings.

 

[Madeline]

So, you admit Thomas is a jackass, Trajan?

Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...or thats not what I intended.

Maddie struggles with basic comprehension.... and, sadly, allows her own opinion to outweigh any facts that do not support it. Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.

PLEASE let's revive the Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator thread.

PLEASE.

LOL.

 

[CMike]

Maddie, why the hard-on for Justice Thomas? You do know we don't get to vote him out right?

I can go on like War And Peace as to why I so dislike the man, mani. I'm aware we cannot "vote him out". There's no precedent for removing a Justice from the bench, and I doubt there ever will be.

If there's a way, it is likely impeachment...trial by the Senate for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, whatever they may be. It'll almost certainly never happen, but mebbe he'll "retire early".

 

[California Girl]

Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...or thats not what I intended.

Maddie struggles with basic comprehension.... and, sadly, allows her own opinion to outweigh any facts that do not support it. Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.

PLEASE let's revive the Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator thread.

PLEASE.

LOL.

Yea, where you accused me of 'defending Thomas' because I dared to ask why you were accepting an unpublished manuscript from an ex-girlfriend as factually accurate. You lost that one - big time, Maddie..... but you're too ridiculously blind to know that.

The manuscript (has it been published yet?) was clearly one sided, and she was clearly trying to find a publisher.... and yet you accept its contents as fact. Stupid woman.

 

[CMike]

[

Maddie struggles with basic comprehension.... and, sadly, allows her own opinion to outweigh any facts that do not support it. Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.

PLEASE let's revive the Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator thread.

PLEASE.

LOL.[/QUOTE]how about reviving the bill Clinton is a rapist thread ?

 

[xsited1]

Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...or thats not what I intended.

Maddie struggles with basic comprehension.... and, sadly, allows her own opinion to outweigh any facts that do not support it. Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.

PLEASE let's revive the Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator thread.

PLEASE.

LOL.

Madeline is off her meds again. My apologies. I'll make sure she takes them before posting again. Thank you.

 

[BenNatuf]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

^ Yet another liberal bit of dishonesty that cannot be supported.

Very surprising that such bullshit is spouted by a person with the intellectual caliber and integrity of leftwinger.

Oh wait.

No. That's not surprising at all. Nevermind.

Honestly, if any questions need to be asked, they can be asked by Scalia. What good would it do for Thomas to ask questions that will not influence how he and Scalia votes.

If Thomas wants an opinion....Scalia will give it to him

attempted maligning meme fail/

The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[97] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[98] Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[99]By your logic it is Evident Ginsberg's condition prevented her from independent thought and she had to ask Souter how to vote.

Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BenNatuf]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

I wouldn't complain about Thomas...

Baby Ruth Ginsberg hasn't really had a coherent thought since a bad acid trip in 1971....

Really? Well then fuck, who IS writing?

BTW, seems Columbia Law School found some important decisions she has written.

Columbia Law School : Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Opinions

ooops... another meme fail/

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas

 

[BenNatuf]

Why don't you libs just admit the truth, you hate Thomas because he's not aquiescing to your claim of racial ownership on his opinion.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Justice Thomas is Black so you must be a racist. And the fact that you are black makes it even worse!

Ever body sang! "We Shall Overcome!"

 

[Ernie S.]

Biden first!