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

[AllieBaba]

I'm really fuzzy on why the dems thing Thomas needs to leave the bench. Sandra Day O'Connor was a RABID supporter of abortion....did anyone ever call for her to step down?

 

[Madeline]

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!"

It does get confuzzulating.

 

[Madeline]

I'm really fuzzy on why the dems thing Thomas needs to leave the bench. Sandra Day O'Connor was a RABID supporter of abortion....did anyone ever call for her to step down?

O'Connor had an abysmal record on women's rights, Allie, but a spotless ethics record. There was never any basis to call for her impeachment.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol..of course there wasn't!
And there's no call for Thomas' impeachment, either.

 

[Jeremy]

It's because he is black, isn't it Madeline.

 

[Jroc]

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 Even more sad, she will accept as 'fact' anything that does support it - even to the point of using an unpublished 'kiss and tell' manuscript by an ex-girlfriend as legitimate.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Yea, where you accused me of 'defending Thomas' because I dared to ask why you were accepting an unpublished manuscript from an ex-girlfriend as factually accurate.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.

Oh but she's not defaming Clarence Thomas right? That's pathetic

 

[California Girl]

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Yea, where you accused me of 'defending Thomas' because I dared to ask why you were accepting an unpublished manuscript from an ex-girlfriend as factually accurate.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.

Oh but she's not defaming Clarence Thomas right? That's pathetic

Oh no.... no.... and she's 'pwned' me again.... at least in her head. I doubt she'll ever understand the difference between her fantasy and reality.

 

[midcan5]

One has to excuse Thomas in this instance and others, you'd first have to know law to know you are breaking it.

http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=4182

"4) Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas
Charges: Their majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC was the worst decision since Scalia instituted SCOTUS Hot Pants Fridays. In lifting a century-long restriction on corporate campaign spending, the Justices flouted a firmly-ingrained precedent and finally provided examples of the nefarious and mythical “Activist Judge.” The original case dealt with the very narrow issue of whether Citizen’s hit-piece/documentary Hillary: The Movie was “electioneering communication” under McCain-Feingold. A district court panel ruled that it was and, hence, could be regulated. Citizens appealed, and the Roberts court took it upon itself to hear the case and inexplicably broaden its scope into a corporate free-speech issue. This is the very definition of “legislating from the bench” and ensures our elections will be dominated by well-funded Swift Boating for the foreseeable future. If democracy was an experiment, this case blew up the lab.
Aggravating factor: “I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” -Chief Justice Roberts
Sentence: Bitch-slapped by Judge Joe Brown. But, no, seriously, they should reverse that decision. It’s not good."

just posted humor

 

[peach174]

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.

Libs want him out of there before the Health Care bill comes up. This is there pathetic attempt to get him out.

 

[midcan5]

Does anyone else note the paradox in the argument that voting together shows some sort of odd lawyerly behavior? If they are interpreting the law then they should be on common ground. You say no! How could that be, don't I hear the words strict constitutionalist often? You mean some see the law differently? Yikes, how can that be.

"Imagine how different dialogue might be with future generations raised on the idea that there are biological constraints on our ability to know what we know. To me, that is our only hope." Robert A. Burton

 

[Trajan]

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.

yes and what did he do maddy to draw your ire?


not talk.


.....is that a new benchmark? so if he speaks he'll be hammered ,now if he doesn't well thats a point of contention too, I am wondering ...whats left?

he he offed himself, would that settle it? Or would he then be accused of being selfish and letting people down........this thread is nonsensical noise . sorry but there it is.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[rightwinger]

Someone needs to take Thomas to see....."The Kings Speech"

 

[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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Then why have orals at all, if the questioning is unnecessary? What do you think is their purpose? As you point out, the Court already has their briefs.

And as a second question, do you not think the parties should have a chance to interact in real time with the Justices at least once in the course of their appeal before the highest Judicial body?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

What do you means he writes nothing?

Opinions by Thomas

And he is the only judge who writes his own stuff. The others rely on clerks.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Wouldn't it be racist of me indeed if I rah rah the man even though I think he's a sexual predator, a vacant lot as a legal scholar, an ethical violator and has a nearly fascist world view?

Just exactly how much ice is being black supposed to cut with me, Ben?

 

[Madeline]

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.

Oh but she's not defaming Clarence Thomas right? That's pathetic

Oh no.... no.... and she's 'pwned' me again.... at least in her head. I doubt she'll ever understand the difference between her fantasy and reality.

In my fantasy, you have already found this thread and bumped it.

In reality, you cannot locate your own ass with both hands in the dark.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Libs want him out of there before the Health Care bill comes up. This is there pathetic attempt to get him out.

You'd be in error here, Miss peach. I am no defender of the health care law and if it is tossed, I'll be almost as glad as you.....mayhaps more.

 

[Madeline]

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.

What do you means he writes nothing?

Opinions by Thomas

And he is the only judge who writes his own stuff. The others rely on clerks.

I dun care who does the dogsbody work, Baruch. That is why Justices have clerks. The others micro-manage what their clerks draft, I have no doubt.

The SCOTUS decisions are a body of legal work unlike any other in our system of laws. They impact the parties before the Court, yes, but their holding (decision) and reasoning is critical to all us peons who must adapt our conduct to what they see as the latest wrinkle in constitutional law.

Because Thomas never questions during oral argument and has written almost (but not quite) no majority opinions or dissents, it is VERY difficult to imagine what his reasoning might could have been. In foreclosing us from this view, IMO, he shirks his duties as a Justice.