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

[Provocateur]

Quit hating on the black man.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It might be noted that the current court does an inordinate amount of chatter. Thomas adding to the noise would not add anything. He has noted that other folks can be counted on to ask the question.
Justice Marshall didn't ask much either. Brennan and Blackmun were also famous for keeping quiet. The current court is usual because of the noise, rather than Thomas being unusual for his being quiet.
Thomas is on record for disliking these interruptions, so he is just being consistant to views long held.

He also seems just a really cool guy who flies coach.

I really think before folks here keep trashing him, they ought to read his memoirs. They explain a lot about Thomas, and those who opposed him.

 

[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.

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.

You don't think that all of a sudden the left are bad mouthing Judge Thomas because they want to get him off of the bench?

 

[zzzz]

Thomas is the Cal Ripken of SCOTUS

His record of being afraid to ask questions will last forever

I must OBJECT to Cal being compared to Thomas! Cal Ripken is a true American sports hero who epitmized the American work ethic by being there everday for work; sick, hurt or whatever. He not only showed up but he gave a 110%. He stayed after games giving those kids autographs long after others left and even today he is making contributions to society.

Judge Thomas who will always be remembered, by me at least, for the long dong silver thing during conformations and the contentious Anita Hill sexual accusations.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You don't think that all of a sudden the left are bad mouthing Judge Thomas because they want to get him off of the bench?

The ABA noted at the time of his nomination that he would be the least qualified Justice in the history of their analysis of nominees. His confirmation process was highly politicized and polarized, and most who were paying attention at that time formed their opinions of him. Not much has changed, particularly many people's minds when folks tend to see what they want to see, save a NYT piece marking the anniversary of the last question he asked in orals to draw his lack of participation in the process into the spotlight on blogs and political message boards.

Do you think the "left" of usmb can get rid of him, or has any reasonable expectations of doing so?

 

[Madeline]

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.

You don't think that all of a sudden the left are bad mouthing Judge Thomas because they want to get him off of the bench?

The revival of the Anita Hill story you can lay squarely at Ginny Thomas' doorstep, peach. Likewise, the uneasy feeling people have about Ginny being the Chief Lobbyist for the Tea Party whilst Thomas is on the bench. Sitting on the Citizens United case without mentioning they paid to campaign to get him confirmed for Justice back in 1991 is entirely on Thomas.

The silence thingie bothers many people, conservative and liberal alike. It does no one any good to know Thomas voted that Citizens United should prevail...what we all need to know is WHY.

If you recall, O'Connor was trashed by every side as well, as she was rarely seen as contributing any original thought. However, you will not find Op Eds calling for her impeachment -- the woman had a spotless ethical record, and in that vein, was untouchable. That used to be something we could take for granted about any Justice, and now it is not.

Thomas is largely responsible for that shift downward, IMO.

 

[Dot Com]

He's beyond a socialist. He sits there and gets paid for staying awake.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You don't think that all of a sudden the left are bad mouthing Judge Thomas because they want to get him off of the bench?

The revival of the Anita Hill story you can lay squarely at Ginny Thomas' doorstep, peach. Likewise, the uneasy feeling people have about Ginny being the Chief Lobbyist for the Tea Party whilst Thomas is on the bench. Sitting on the Citizens United case without mentioning they paid to campaign to get him confirmed for Justice back in 1991 is entirely on Thomas.

The silence thingie bothers many people, conservative and liberal alike. It does no one any good to know Thomas voted that Citizens United should prevail...what we all need to know is WHY.

If you recall, O'Connor was trashed by every side as well, as she was rarely seen as contributing any original thought. However, you will not find Op Ed calling for her impeachment -- the woman had a spotless ethical record, and in that vein, was untouchable. That used to be something we could take for granted about any Justice, and now it is not.

Thomas is largely responsible for that shift downward, IMO.

Thomas isn't the only one, but there has been a shift both downward in ethical standards and toward more politicization of the bench in the last 25 years or so. Not entirely their doing, it was partly due to the Presidents who nominated them and partly the pontificating Senators who grilled them, but the Bork and then the Thomas confirmation hearings poisoned the waters, so to speak.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of three of the other Justices from an ethical standpoint either, and they're on both "sides". But for the purposes of this thread I'm more focused on the lack of participation in the process of orals. If, in fact, the parties have the right to confront and interact with the Court, then it stands to reason that all Justices should be expected to participate on a regular basis. It is part of their duties. If not, orals serve no purpose and should be abolished.

If it were a few cases in a row where a particular Justice had no questions, no big deal. That should happen theoretically with any and all of the Justices. But a streak lasting 5 years concerns me as far as the right of the parties to interact with the Justices and their obligation to give the parties that opportunity to interact. Particularly in cases where Thomas ended up writing the decisions.

 

[peach174]

Then why have the left started bringing him up with the old arguments , the left haven't said much at all over the years but now that the health care bill will be brought up before the judges , the left bloggers are bringing it up all over again.

 

[goldcatt]

Then why have the left started bringing him up with the old arguments , the left haven't said much at all over the years but now that the health care bill will be brought up before the judges , the left bloggers are bringing it up all over again.

You'd have to ask them, if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the perfect storm of ethics questions and the attention drawn to what those in the business already knew brought him to their attention when most of the time bloggers left and right have no clue what's going on in the legal world. You might as well ask why "right" bloggers are trying to get rid of Obama. Because he's in the news, so they write about him.

But do "left" bloggers have the power and authority to impeach a sitting Supreme Court Justice? Heck, the Justices are even exempt from the Code of Federal Judicial ethics. Unless they commit an act rising to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, they are literally in some ways above the law.

That doesn't shield him from questions, opinions, criticism or concern any more than it does any other public official, but I'm pretty sure his position is safe

 

[peach174]

Then why have the left started bringing him up with the old arguments , the left haven't said much at all over the years but now that the health care bill will be brought up before the judges , the left bloggers are bringing it up all over again.

You'd have to ask them, if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the perfect storm of ethics questions and the attention drawn to what those in the business already knew brought him to their attention when most of the time bloggers left and right have no clue what's going on in the legal world. You might as well ask why "right" bloggers are trying to get rid of Obama. Because he's in the news, so they write about him.

But do "left" bloggers have the power and authority to impeach a sitting Supreme Court Justice? Heck, the Justices are even exempt from the Code of Federal Judicial ethics. Unless they commit an act rising to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, they are literally in some ways above the law.

That doesn't shield him from questions, opinions, criticism or concern any more than it does any other public official, but I'm pretty sure his position is safe

They just want to stir things up, it gives them something to whine about after the Health care bill is ruled upon. That's what I think

 

[goldcatt]

Then why have the left started bringing him up with the old arguments , the left haven't said much at all over the years but now that the health care bill will be brought up before the judges , the left bloggers are bringing it up all over again.

You'd have to ask them, if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the perfect storm of ethics questions and the attention drawn to what those in the business already knew brought him to their attention when most of the time bloggers left and right have no clue what's going on in the legal world. You might as well ask why "right" bloggers are trying to get rid of Obama. Because he's in the news, so they write about him.

But do "left" bloggers have the power and authority to impeach a sitting Supreme Court Justice? Heck, the Justices are even exempt from the Code of Federal Judicial ethics. Unless they commit an act rising to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, they are literally in some ways above the law.

That doesn't shield him from questions, opinions, criticism or concern any more than it does any other public official, but I'm pretty sure his position is safe

They just want to stir things up, it gives them something to whine about after the Health care bill is ruled upon. That's what I think

I'm not sure if it's more optimistic or more cynical than your view, but in the day of the 24-hour news cycle and the daily talking point memo I highly doubt anyone left or right is planning headlines and canning print a year and a half to two years ahead. They just aren't programmed that way, nor will it make them money today.

 

[Madeline]

Wouldn't it be wrong for me to support Thomas merely because we are both African Americans?

 

[uscitizen]

Wouldn't it be wrong for me to support Thomas merely because we are both African Americans?

I would consider that to be wrong.
Support should be based on merit not race or political affiliation.

 

[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.

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?

What you think is pretty irrelevant. He's not a sexual predator and you have zero evedence that he is, he's written lots of opinions as have been linked in this thread, first by me, putting an end to your meme about his "not writing", you disagreeing with them has no bearing on whether or not his approach is schlolarly, he admitted and repair the reporting error dispelling of your "ethical complaint, and if you want to find fascist policy you'll have to look to your hero in the WH.

You hate him because he's not on your plantation where "he belongs"

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

oh look... this is what almost none looks like.

Writings by Justice Thomas
grouped by type, in alphabetical order by first party name

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Opinions | Concurrences | Dissents | Concur in part, dissent in part ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinions
•14 PENN PLAZA LLC, ET AL. v. PYETT, STEVEN, ET AL. , , 04/01/09
•AETNA HEALTH INC., ETC. v. DAVILA, JUAN , 542 U.S. 200 (2004), 06/21/04
•ALASKA v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIETRIBAL GOVERNMENT , 522 U.S. 520 (1998), 02/25/98
•ALI, ABDUS-SHAHID M. S. v. FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL. , , 01/22/08
•ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al. v. EDWARDS, guardian ad litem for EDWARDS, et al. , 514 U.S. 143 (1995), 03/22/95
•ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN. v. ACLU, ET AL. , 535 U.S. 564 (2002), 05/13/02
•ASTRUE, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. v. RATLIFF, CATHERINE G. , , 06/14/10
•ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO., INC. v. TOWNSEND, EDGAR L. , , 06/25/09
•AZ DEPT. OF REVENUE v. BLAZE CONSTR. CO. , 526 U.S. 32 (1999), 03/02/99
•BARAL, DAVID H. v. UNITED STATES , 528 U.S. 431 (2000), 02/22/00
•BARNHART, COMMR, SOC SEC v. SIGMON COAL CO., ET AL. , 534 U.S. 438 (2002), 02/19/02
•BD. OF ED., POTTAWATOMIE CTY v. EARLS, LINDSAY, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 822 (2002), 06/27/02
•BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL. v. BANKS, GEORGE E. , 542 U.S. 406 (2004), 06/24/04
•BECK, ROBERT A. v. PRUPIS, ROBERT M., ET AL. , 529 U.S. 494 (2000), 00/00/00
•BLOATE, TAYLOR J. v. UNITED STATES , , 03/08/10
•BOGAN v. SCOTT-HARRIS , 523 U.S. 44 (1998), 03/03/98
•BOWLES, KEITH v. RUSSELL, WARDEN , , 06/14/07
•BRIDGE, JOHN, ET AL. v. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY, ET AL. , , 06/09/08
•CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. v. MORALES , 514 U.S. 499 (1995), 04/25/95
•CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N. A., INC., et al. , 519 U.S. 316 (1997), 02/18/97
•CARCIERI, GOV. OF RI, ET AL. v. KEMPTHORNE, SEC. OF INTERIOR , , 02/24/09
•CAREY, WARDEN v. MUSLADIN, MATHEW , 549 U.S. 70 (2006), 12/11/06
•CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. HIF BIO, INC., ET AL. , , 05/04/09
•CARTER, FLOYD J. v. UNITED STATES , 530 U.S. 255 (2000), 06/12/00
•CASS COUNTY v. LEECH LAKE BAND OFCHIPPEWA INDIANS , 524 U.S. 103 (1998), 06/08/98
•CHAVEZ, BEN v. MARTINEZ, OLIVERIO , 538 U.S. 760 (2003), 05/27/03
•CHRISTENSEN, EDWARD, ET AL. v. HARRIS CTY., TX, ET AL. , 529 U.S. 576 (2000), 05/01/00
•CLINGMAN, SEC., OK ELECTION BD. v. BEAVER, ANDREA L., ET AL. , 544 U.S. 581 (2005), 05/23/05
•CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. GOTTSHALL , 512 U.S. 532 (1994), 06/24/94
•COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AVIALL SERVICES, INC. , 543 U.S. 157 (2004), 12/13/04
•CUELLAR, HUMBERTO F. R. v. UNITED STATES , , 06/02/08
•CUNNINGHAM, TERESA v. HAMILTON COUNTY , 527 U.S. 198 (1999), 06/14/99
•DELAWARE v. NEW YORK , 507 U.S. 490 (1993), 03/30/93
•DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. v. PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 752 (2004), 06/07/04
•DESERT PALACE, INC. v. COSTA, CATHARINA F. , 539 U.S. 90 (2003), 06/09/03
•DIR. OF REVENUE OF MO v. CoBANK ACB , 531 U.S. 316 (2001), 02/20/01
•DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. GREATER , 506 U.S. 125 (1992), 12/14/92
•DOOLEY v. KOREAN AIR LINES CO. , 524 U.S. 116 (1998), 06/08/98
•eBAY INC., ET AL. v. MERcEXCHANGE, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006), 05/15/06
•EGELHOFF, DONNA R. v. EGELHOFF, SAMANTHA, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 141 (2001), 03/21/01
•ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERV. COMM. , 539 U.S. 39 (2003), 06/02/03
•EXXON CO., U. S. A., et al. v. SOFEC, INC., et al. , 517 U.S. 830 (1996), 06/10/96
•FARRAR et al., COADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE OF FARRAR, DECEASED v. HOBBY , 506 U.S. 103 (1992), 12/14/92
•FED. MARITIME COMM'N v. SC STATE PORTS AUTHORITY , 535 U.S. 743 (2002), 05/28/02
•FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. , 508 U.S. 307 (1993), 06/01/93
•FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. MEYER , 510 U.S. 471 (1994), 02/23/94
•FELTNER v. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. , 523 U.S. 340 (1998), 03/31/98
•FL DEPT. OF REVENUE v. PICCADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC. , , 06/16/08
•FLORIDA v. WHITE, TYVESSEL TYVORUS , 526 U.S. 559 (1999), 05/17/99
•FREIGHTLINER CORP. et al. v. MYRICK et al. , 514 U.S. 280 (1995), 04/18/95
•GITLITZ, D., ET UX., ET AL. v. CIR , 531 U.S. 206 (2001), 01/09/01
•GODINEZ, WARDEN v. MORAN , 509 U.S. 389 (1993), 06/24/93
•GOOD NEWS CLUB, ET AL. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL , 533 U.S. 98 (2001), 06/11/01
•GRAHAM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. U. S., ex rel. WILSON , 545 U.S. 409 (2005), 06/20/05
•GRANITE ROCK COMPANY v. INT'L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. , , 06/24/10
•GROSS, JACK v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , , 06/18/09
•HARDT, BRIDGET v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. , , 05/24/10
•HARPER et al. v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION , 509 U.S. 86 (1993), 06/18/93
•HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. SALOMON BROS., INC., ET AL. , 530 U.S. 238 (2000), 06/12/00
•HOPKINS v. REEVES , 524 U.S. 88 (1998), 06/08/98
•HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES v. PFENNIG, SHARON R. , 541 U.S. 232 (2004), 04/21/04
•HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO., ET AL. v. JACOBSON, STANLEY, ET AL. , 525 U.S. 432 (1999), 01/25/99
•HUNT, GOV. OF NC, ET AL. v. CROMARTIE, MARTIN, ET AL. , 526 U.S. 541 (1999), 05/17/99
•J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, ET AL. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INTL. , 534 U.S. 124 (2001), 12/10/01
•JIMENEZ, CARLOS v. QUARTERMAN, DIR., TX DOC , , 01/13/09
•JONES, LOUIS v. UNITED STATES , 527 U.S. 373 (1999), 06/21/99
•KANSAS v. MARSH, MICHAEL L. , 548 U.S. 163 (2006), 06/26/06
•KANSAS v. HENDRICKS , 521 U.S. 346 (1997), 06/23/97
•KNOWLES, WARDEN v. MIRZAYANCE, ALEXANDRE , , 03/24/09
•LAWRENCE, GARY v. FLORIDA , 549 U.S. 327 (2007), 02/20/07
•LOCKHEED CORP. et al. v. SPINK , 517 U.S. 882 (1996), 06/10/96
•MAGWOOD, BILLY J. v. CULLIVER, WARDEN, ET AL. , , 06/24/10
•MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. v. EPSTEIN , 516 U.S. 367 (1996), 02/27/96
•MELENDEZ v. UNITED STATES , 518 U.S. 120 (1996), 06/17/96
•MITCHELL, GUY, ET AL. v. HELMS, MARY L., ET AL. , 530 U.S. 793 (2000), 06/28/00
•MOYLAN, ATT'Y GEN. OF GUAM v. CAMACHO, GOV. OF GUAM , 549 U.S. 483 (2007), 03/27/07
•NAT'L CABLE & TELECOMM. ASSN. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES , 545 U.S. 967 (2005), 06/27/05
•NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. v. FIRST NAT.BANK & TRUST CO. , 522 U.S. 479 (1998), 02/25/98
•NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION et al. , 515 U.S. 582 (1995), 06/19/95
•NATL. PARK HOSP. ASSN. v. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. , 538 U.S. 803 (2003), 05/27/03
•NATL. RR PASSENGER CORP. v. MORGAN, ABNER , 536 U.S. 101 (2002), 06/10/02
•NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. LOEWENSTEIN , 513 U.S. 123 (1994), 12/12/94
•NOBELMAN et ux. v. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK , 508 U.S. 324 (1993), 06/01/93
•NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. HILES , 516 U.S. 400 (1996), 02/27/96
•NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, , 508 U.S. 656 (1993), 06/14/93
•Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. CHATHAM COUNTY, GA , 547 U.S. 189 (2006), 04/25/06
•O'DELL v. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, et al. , 521 U.S. 151 (1997), 06/19/97
•OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN, RUBINA, ETC., ET AL. , 540 U.S. 644 (2004), 02/24/04
•OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE , 511 U.S. 93 (1994), 04/04/94
•ORFF, FRANCIS A., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 596 (2005), 06/23/05
•PASQUANTINO, DAVID B., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 349 (2005), 04/26/05
•PEACOCK v. THOMAS , 516 U.S. 349 (1996), 02/21/96
•Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 (1998), 06/22/98
•PERMANENT MISSION ETC., ET AL. v. NEW YORK, NY , , 06/14/07
•PIERCE COUNTY, WA v. GUILLEN, IGNACIO, ET AL. , 537 U.S. 129 (2003), 01/14/03
•PLILER, WARDEN v. FORD, RICHARD H. , 542 U.S. 225 (2004), 06/21/04
•POLLARD, SHARON B. v. E. I. DuPONT de NEMOURS , 532 U.S. 843 (2001), 06/04/01
•QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. , , 06/09/08
•RAKE et al. v. WADE, TRUSTEE , 508 U.S. 464 (1993), 06/07/93
•RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ, JOEL , 540 U.S. 44 (2003), 12/02/03
•REED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. v. MUCHNICK, IRVIN, ET AL. , , 03/02/10
•ROBERTSON, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al. v. SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY , 503 U.S. 429 (1992), 03/25/92
•ROBINSON v. SHELL OIL CO. , 519 U.S. 337 (1997), 02/18/97
•ROUSEY, RICHARD G., ET UX. v. JACOWAY, JILL R. , 544 U.S. 320 (2005), 04/04/05
•RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING CO. , 514 U.S. 476 (1995), 04/19/95
•SCHRIRO, DIR., AZ DOC v. LANDRIGAN, JEFFREY T. , , 05/14/07
•SCHWAB, WILLIAM G. v. REILLY, NADEJDA , , 06/17/10
•SHANNON v. UNITED STATES , 512 U.S. 573 (1994), 06/24/94
•SHAW, ROBERT, ET AL. v. MURPHY, KEVIN , 532 U.S. 223 (2001), 04/18/01
•SIMS, JUATASSA v. APFEL, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. , 530 U.S. 103 (2000), 06/05/00
•SMTIH, WARDEN v. ROBBINS, LEE , 528 U.S. 259 (2000), 01/19/00
•SOUTH DAKOTA v. BOURLAND, individually and as chairman of the CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, et al. , 508 U.S. 679 (1993), 06/14/93
•SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. v. MENDELSOHN, ELLEN , , 02/26/08
•STAPLES v. UNITED STATES , 511 U.S. 600 (1994), 05/23/94
•STEWART, WILLARD v. DUTRA CONST. CO. , 543 U.S. 481 (2005), 02/22/05
•SWIERKIEWICZ, AKOS v. SOREMA N.A. , 534 U.S. 506 (2002), 02/26/02
•TAYLOR v. FREELAND & KRONZ et al. , 503 U.S. 638 (1992), 04/21/92
•TEXACO, INC. v. DAGHER, FOUAD N., ET AL. , 547 U.S. 1 (2006), 02/28/06
•THINGS REMEMBERED, INC. v. PETRARCA , 516 U.S. 124 (1995), 12/05/95
•TYLER, MELVIN v. CAIN, WARDEN , 533 U.S. 656 (2001), 06/28/01
•U. S., EX REL. EISENSTEIN v. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. , , 06/08/09
•UNITED STATES v. GALLETTI , 541 U.S. 114 (2004), 03/23/04
•UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 483 (2001), 05/14/01
•UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, JACINTO , 526 U.S. 275 (1999), 03/30/99
•UNITED STATES v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. , 517 U.S. 843 (1996), 06/10/96
•UNITED STATES v. BAJAKAJIAN , 524 U.S. 321 (1998), 06/22/98
•UNITED STATES v. PATANE, SAMUEL F. , 542 U.S. 630 (2004), 06/28/04
•UNITED STATES v. WILSON , 503 U.S. 329 (1992), 03/24/92
•UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ SANCHEZ , 511 U.S. 350 (1994), 05/02/94
•UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP. , , 06/11/07
•UNITED STATES v. MEZZANATTO , 513 U.S. 196 (1995), 01/18/95
•UNITED STATES v. SALERNO et al. , 505 U.S. 317 (1992), 06/19/92
•UNITED STATES v. LaBONTE et al. , 520 U.S. 751 (1997), 05/27/97
•UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER , 523 U.S. 303 (1998), 03/31/98
•UNITED STATES DEPT. OF DEFENSE v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS , 510 U.S. 487 (1994), 02/23/94
•UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. BEAN, THOMAS L. , 537 U.S. 71 (2002), 12/10/02
•UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. ESPINOSA, FRANCISCO J. , , 03/23/10
•UNITHERM FOOD SYS., INC. v. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC., ET AL. , 546 U.S. 394 (2006), 01/23/06
•WADDINGTON, SUPT., WA v. SARAUSAD, CESAR , , 01/21/09
•WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION , 546 U.S. 95 (2005), 12/06/05
•WARNER JENKINSON CO., INC. v. HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL CO. , 520 U.S. 17 (1997), 03/03/97
•WASHINGTON v. RECUENCO, ARTURO R. , 548 U.S. 212 (2006), 06/26/06
•WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL. , , 03/18/08
•WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO. , 549 U.S. 312 (2007), 02/20/07
•WILSON v. ARKANSAS , 514 U.S. 927 (1995), 05/22/95
•WOODFORD, WARDEN v. GARCEAU, ROBERT F. , 538 U.S. 202 (2003), 03/25/03
•WRIGHT, WARDEN, et al. v. WEST , 505 U.S. 277 (1992), 06/19/92
•YOUNG et al. v. HARPER , 520 U.S. 143 (1997), 03/18/97
Concurrences
•44 LIQUORMART, INC., et al. v. RHODE ISLAND et al. , 517 U.S. 484 (1996), 05/13/96
•ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. , 515 U.S. 200 (1995), 06/12/95
•ALBERTSONS, INC. v. KIRKINGBURG, HALLIE , 527 U.S. 555 (1999), 06/22/99
•AM. TRUCKING ASSNS., ET AL. v. MI PUB. SERV. COMM'N, ET AL. , 06/20/05
•APPRENDI, CHARLES C. v. NEW JERSEY , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 06/26/00
•ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION , 535 U.S. 234 (2002), 04/16/02
•BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST AND SAV. ASSN. v.203 NORTH LASALLE STREET PARTNERSHIP v. , 526 U.S. 434 (1999), 05/03/99
•BARTLETT, GARY, ET AL. v. STRICKLAND, DWIGHT, ET AL. , , 03/09/09
•BAZE, RALPH, ET AL. v. REES, COMM'R, KY DOC, ET AL. , , 04/16/08
•BEARD, SEC., PA DOC v. BANKS, RONALD , 548 U.S. 521 (2006), 06/28/06
•BEDROC LTD., LLC, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 176 (2004), 03/31/04
•BENNIS v. MICHIGAN , 517 U.S. 1163 (1996), 03/04/96
•BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. SMITH, DIAPOLIS , , 03/30/10
•BROWNER, EPA ADMINR. v. AM. TRUCKING ASSNS., ET AL. , , 02/27/01
•BUCKLEY, SEC. OF ST. OF CO v. AM. CONST. LAW FNDN., ET AL. , 525 U.S. 182 (1999), 01/12/99
•BUSH, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al. v. VERA et al. , 517 U.S. 952 (1996), 06/13/96
•CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD et al. v. PINETTE et al. , 515 U.S. 753 (1995), 06/29/95
•CARACHURI-ROSENDO, JOSE A. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN. , , 06/14/10
•CHRISTOPHER, WARREN, ET AL. v. HARBURY, JENNIFER K. , 536 U.S. 403 (2002), 06/20/02
•COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOLIMAN , 506 U.S. 168 (1993), 01/12/93
•CONCRETE PIPE & PRODUCTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA , 508 U.S. 602 (1993), 06/14/93
•COOK, REBECCA M. v. GRALIKE, DON , 531 U.S. 510 (2001), 02/28/01
•COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC. , 532 U.S. 424 (2001), 05/14/01
•CUTTER, JON B., ET AL. v. WILKINSON, DIR., OH DOC, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 709 (2005), 05/31/05
•DEPT. OF REVENUE OF KY, ET AL. v. DAVIS, GEORGE W., ET UX. , , 05/19/08
•EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL , 524 U.S. 498 (1998), 06/25/98
•EDELMAN, LEONARD v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE , 535 U.S. 106 (2002), 03/19/02
•ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. v. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL. , 542 U.S. 1 (2004), 06/14/04
•ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, ET AL. v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION , 549 U.S. 561 (2007), 04/02/07
•FARMER v. BRENNAN, WARDEN, et al. , 511 U.S. 825 (1994), 06/06/94
•FCC, ET AL. v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, ET AL. , , 04/28/09
•FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC. , 510 U.S. 517 (1994), 03/01/94
•GEORGIA v. ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. , 539 U.S. 461 (2003), 06/26/03
•GEORGIA v. McCOLLUM et al. , 505 U.S. 42 (1992), 06/18/92
•GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. v. CARHART, LEROY, ET AL. , , 04/18/07
•GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS v. DARUE ENGINEERING , 545 U.S. 308 (2005), 06/13/05
•GRAHAM v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION , 506 U.S. 461 (1993), 01/25/93
•GRATZ, JENNIFER, ET AL. v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 244 (2003), 06/23/03
•GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADC. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. , 527 U.S. 173 (1999), 06/14/99
•HARBISON, EDWARD J. v. BELL, WARDEN , , 04/01/09
•HECK v. HUMPHREY et al. , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 06/24/94
•HOLDER, individually and in his official capacity as COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR BLE v. HALL et al. , 512 U.S. 874 (1994), 06/30/94
•HOWSAM, KAREN, ETC. v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS , 537 U.S. 79 (2002), 12/10/02
•IRIZARRY, RICHARD v. UNITED STATES , , 06/12/08
•JEROME B. GRUBART, INC. v. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. et al. , 513 U.S. 527 (1995), 02/22/95
•JOHANNS, SEC. OF AGRIC., ET AL. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 550 (2005), 05/23/05
•JOHNSON v. TEXAS , 509 U.S. 350 (1993), 06/24/93
•JOHNSON, CORNELL v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 694 (2000), 05/15/00
•JONES, DEWEY J. v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), 05/22/00
•JONES, JERRY N., ET AL. v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P. , , 03/30/10
•KANSAS v. COLORADO , , 12/07/04
•KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC v. NIGH, BRADLEY , 543 U.S. 50 (2004), 11/30/04
•KOWALSKI, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL. v. TESMER, JOHN C., ET AL. , 543 U.S. 125 (2004), 12/13/04
•LaRUE, JAMES v. DeWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOC., INC. , , 02/20/08
•LEVIN, RICHARD A. v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., ET AL. , , 06/01/10
•LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. CASEY et al. , 516 U.S. 804 (1996), 06/24/96
•LILLY, BENJAMIN L. v. VIRGINIA , 527 U.S. 116 (1999), 06/10/99
•LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION v. FRETWELL , 506 U.S. 364 (1993), 01/25/93
•LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., ET AL v. REILLY, ATTY. GEN. OF MA , , 06/28/01
•LOVING v. UNITED STATES , 517 U.S. 748 (1996), 06/03/96
•LYNCE v. MATHIS, SUPERINTENDENT, TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al. , 519 U.S. 433 (1997), 02/19/97
•MARYLAND v. SHATZER, MICHAEL B. , , 02/24/10
•McDANIEL, WARDEN, ET AL. v. BROWN, TROY , , 01/11/10
•McDONALD, OTIS, ET AL. v. CHICAGO, IL , , 06/28/10
•McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION , 514 U.S. 334 (1995), 04/19/95
•MEADWESTVACO CORP. v. IL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL. , , 04/15/08
•MELENDEZ-DIAZ, LUIS E. v. MASSACHUSETTS , , 06/25/09
•MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ v. UNITED STATES , , 03/08/10
•MISSOURI et al. v. JENKINS et al. , 515 U.S. 70 (1995), 06/12/95
•MITCHELL, WARDEN v. STUMPF, JOHN D. , 545 U.S. 175 (2005), 06/13/05
•MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CARPENTER, NORMAN , , 12/08/09
•MORSE, DEBORAH, ET AL. v. FREDERICK, JOSEPH , , 06/25/07
•NASA, ET AL. v. NELSON, ROBERT M., ET AL. , , 01/19/11
•NORDLINGER v. HAHN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TAX ASSESSOR FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al. , 505 U.S. 1 (1992), 06/18/92
•ONCALE v. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC. , 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 03/04/98
•ORTIZ, MICHELLE v. JORDAN, PAULA, ET AL. , , 01/24/11
•OVERTON, DIR., MI DOC v. BAZZETTA, MICHELLE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 126 (2003), 06/16/03
•PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMM. SCHS. v. SEATTLE SCH. DIST. NO. 1 , , 06/28/07
•PERDUE, GOV. OF GA, ET AL. v. KENNY A., ET AL. , , 04/21/10
•PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH v. WALSH , 538 U.S. 644 (2003), 05/19/03
•POSTAL SERVICE v. GREGORY, MARIA A. , 534 U.S. 1 (2001), 11/13/01
•PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES , 521 U.S. 898 (1997), 06/27/97
•RANDALL, NEIL, ET AL. v. SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL. , 548 U.S. 230 (2006), 06/26/06
•RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., ETC. v. HENTON, WILLIAM T. , 541 U.S. 1 (2004), 03/02/04
•RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al. , 520 U.S. 471 (1997), 05/12/97
•RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCH. BD. , , 01/24/00
•REPUBLIC NAT'L BANK OF MIAMI v. UNITED STATES , 506 U.S. 80 (1992), 12/14/92
•RICHMOND v. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA , 506 U.S. 56 (1992), 12/01/92
•ROSENBERGER et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 515 U.S. 819 (1995), 06/29/95
•SABRI, BASIM O. v. UNITED STATES , 541 U.S. 600 (2004), 05/17/04
•SAFECO INS. CO., ET AL. v. BURR, CHARLES, ET AL. , , 06/04/07
•SAMANTAR, MOHAMED A. v. YOUSUF, BASHE A., ET AL. , , 06/01/10
•SELING, SUPT., SPECIAL CC v. YOUNG, ANDRE BRIGHAM , 531 U.S. 250 (2001), 01/17/01
•SHEPARD, REGINALD v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 13 (2005), 03/07/05
•SMITH, ET AL. v. DOE, ET AL. , 538 U.S. 84 (2003), 03/05/03
•SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. ALABAMA , 526 U.S. 160 (1999), 03/23/99
•THOMPSON, SEC. OF H&HS v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENT. , 535 U. S. 357 (2002), 04/29/02
•TILL, LEE M., ET UX. v. SCS CREDIT CORP. , 541 U.S. 465 (2004), 05/17/04
•TN SECD'Y SCH. ATHL. ASSN. v. BRENTWOOD ACADEMY , , 06/21/07
•TROXEL, JENIFER, ET VIR v. GRANVILLE, TOMMIE , 530 U.S. 57 (2000), 06/05/00
•TWO PESOS, INC. v. TACO CABANA, INC. , 505 U.S. 763 (1992), 06/26/92
•UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES v. UNITED STATES , 532 U.S. 822 (2001), 06/04/01
•UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID WASTE , , 04/30/07
•UNITED STATES v. HUBBELL, WEBSTER L. , 530 U.S. 27 (2000), 06/05/00
•UNITED STATES v. MORRISON, ANTONIO J., ET AL. , , 05/15/00
•UNITED STATES v. FORDICE, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al. , 505 U.S. 717 (1992), 06/26/92
•UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN, MARTIN, ET AL. , , 05/24/10
•UNITED STATES v. RUIZ, ANGELA , 536 U.S. 622 (2002), 06/24/02
•UNITED STATES v. LARA, BILLY JO , 541 U.S. 193 (2004), 04/19/04
•UNITED STATES v. RESSAM, AHMED , , 05/19/08
•UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ , 514 U.S. 549 (1995), 04/26/95
•UNITED STATES v. R. L. C. , 503 U.S. 291 (1992), 03/24/92
•UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. UNITED FOODS, INC. , 533 U.S. 405 (2001), 06/25/01
•UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP , 529 U.S. 803 (2000), 05/22/00
•VAN ORDEN, THOMAS v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 677 (2005), 06/27/05
•WEST COVINA v. PERKINS , 525 U.S. 234 (1999), 01/13/99
•WILKIE v. ROBBINS , , 06/25/07
•WILKINS v. GADDY , , 02/22/10
•WILLIAMSON, DELBERT, ET AL. v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, ET AL. , , 02/23/11
•WYETH v. LEVINE, DIANA , , 03/04/09
•ZELMAN, SUPT. OF PUB. INSTR. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, DORIS, ET AL , 536 U.S. 639 (2002), 06/27/02
Dissents
•OLMSTEAD, COMMR., GA HUMAN vs. L. C., ETC. ET AL., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), 06/22/99
•ALLIED BRUCE TERMINIX COS., INC., et al. v. DOBSON et al. , 513 U.S. 265 (1995), 01/18/95
•ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. GOOD, STEPHANIE, ET AL. , , 12/15/08
•ANDERSON, ELOISE, ET AL. v. ROE, BRENDA, ET AL. , 526 U.S. 489 (1999), 05/17/99
•ARCHER, A. ELLIOTT, ET UX. v. WARNER, ARLENE L. , 538 U.S. 314 (2003), 03/31/03
•BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA v. PEABODY COAL CO., ET AL. , 537 U.S. 149 (2003), 01/15/03
•BOEING CO., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES , 537 U.S. 437 (2003), 03/04/03
•BRENTWOOD ACADEMY v. TN SECONDARY SCH., ET AL. , 531 U.S. 288 (2001), 02/20/01
•BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA, JOHN, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 440 (2006), 02/21/06
•BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH , 524 U.S. 742 (1998), 06/26/98
•CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. v. TOWN OF HARRISON et al. , 520 U.S. 564 (1997), 05/19/97
•CARON v. UNITED STATES , 524 U.S. 308 (1998), 06/22/98
•CBOCS WEST, INC. v. HUMPHRIES, HEDRICK G. , , 05/27/08
•CEDAR RAPIDS COM. SCH. DIST. v. GARRET F., A MINOR, ETC. , 526 U.S. 66 (1999), 03/03/99
•CENTRAL VIRGINIA COMM. COLLEGE v. KATZ, BERNARD , 546 U.S. 356 (2006), 01/23/06
•CHICAGO v. MORALES , 527 U.S. 41 (1999), 06/10/99
•CITY OF EDMONDS v. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 725 (1995), 05/15/95
•COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LUNDY , 516 U.S. 235 (1996), 01/17/96
•CONE, GARY B. v. BELL, WARDEN , , 04/28/09
•CRAWFORD, INT. FIELD OFFICE DIR. v. MARTINEZ, SERGIO S. , 543 U.S. 371 (2005), 01/12/05
•CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LTD. v. BILLING, GLEN, ET AL. , , 06/18/07
•CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. AL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL. , , 02/22/11
•DECK, CARMAN v. MISSOURI , 544 U.S. 622 (2005), 05/23/05
•DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v. CASAROTTO et ux. , 517 U.S. 681 (1996), 05/20/96
•DOE #1, JOHN, ET AL. v. REED, WA SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. , , 06/24/10
•DOGGETT v. UNITED STATES , 505 U.S. 647 (1992), 00/00/00
•DOLAN, BARBARA v. USPS, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 481 (2006), 02/22/06
•EEOC v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. , 534 U.S. 279 (2002), 01/15/02
•ERICKSON v. PARDUS , , 06/04/07
•EVANS v. UNITED STATES , 504 U.S. 255 (1992), 05/26/92
•FARAGHER v. CITY OF BOCA RATON , 524 U.S. 775 (1998), 06/26/98
•FEC v. BEAUMONT, CHRISTINE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 146 (2003), 06/16/03
•FEC v. CO REPUBLICAN FED. CAMPAIGN , 533 U.S. 431 (2001), 06/25/01
•FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. v. HOLOWECKI, PAUL, ET AL. , , 02/27/08
•FISCHER, JEFFREY A. v. UNITED STATES , 529 U.S. 667 (2000), 05/15/00
•FOUCHA v. LOUISIANA , 504 U.S. 71 (1992), 05/18/92
•GALL, BRIAN M. v. UNITED STATES , , 12/10/07
•GARLOTTE v. FORDICE, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI , 515 U.S. 39 (1995), 05/30/95
•GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS. v. CLINE, DENNIS, ET AL. , 540 U.S. 581 (2004), 02/24/04
•GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, SCOTT F. , 547 U.S. 103 (2006), 03/22/06
•GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al. , 521 U.S. 457 (1997), 06/25/97
•GLOBAL CROSSING, INC. v. METROPHONES, INC. , , 04/17/07
•GOMEZ-PEREZ, MYRNA v. POTTER, POSTMASTER GEN. , , 05/27/08
•GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. v. OREGON, ET AL. , 546 U.S. 243 (2006), 01/17/06
•GONZALES, ATT\'Y GEN., ET AL. v. RAICH, ANGEL M., ET AL. , 545 U.S. 1 (2005), 06/06/05
•GONZALEZ, HOMERO v. UNITED STATES , , 05/12/08
•GRAHAM, TERRANCE J. v. FLORIDA , , 05/17/10
•GRANHOLM, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. v. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL. , 544 U.S. 460 (2005), 05/16/05
•GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. v. BAZZLE, LYNN W., ET AL. , 539 U.S. 444 (2003), 06/23/03
•GROH, JEFF v. RAMIREZ, JOSEPH R., ET AL. , 540 U.S. 551 (2004), 02/24/04
•GUSTAFSON et al. v. ALLOYD CO., INC., fka ALLOYD HOLDINGS, INC., et al. , 513 U.S. 561 (1995), 02/28/95
•HALBERT, ANTONIO D. v. MICHIGAN , 545 U.S. 605 (2005), 06/23/05
•HAMDAN, SALIM A. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE , 548 U.S. 557 (2006), 06/29/06
•HAMDI, YASER E. ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE , 542 U.S. 507 (2004), 06/28/04
•HARRIS, WILLIAM J. v. UNITED STATES , 536 U.S. 545 (2002), 06/24/02
•HAYWOOD, KEITH v. DROWN, CURTIS, ET AL. , , 05/26/09
•HELLING et al. v. McKINNEY , 509 U.S. 25 (1993), 06/18/93
•HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES , 517 U.S. 654 (1996), 05/20/96
•HOLLOWAY, FRANCOIS v. UNITED STATES , 526 U.S. 1 (1999), 03/02/99
•HOPE, LARRY v. PELZER, MARK, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 730 (2002), 06/27/02
•HUNT, GOV. OF NC, ET AL. v. CROMARTIE, MARTIN, ET AL. , , 04/18/01
•INDIANAPOLIS, IN, ET AL. v. EDMOND, JAMES, ET AL. , 531 U.S. 32 (2000), 11/28/00
•JACKSON, RODERICK v. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF EDUCATION , 544 U.S. 167 (2005), 03/29/05
•JAMES, ALPHONSO v. UNITED STATES , , 04/18/07
•JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, as , 510 U.S. 86 (1993), 12/13/93
•JOHNSON v. De GRANDY , 512 U.S. 997 (1994), 06/30/94
•JOHNSON, GARRISON S. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. , 543 U.S. 499 (2005), 02/23/05
•JONES, GARY K. v. FLOWERS, LINDA K., ET AL. , 547 U.S. 220 (2006), 04/26/06
•KELLY, WILLIAM A. v. SOUTH CAROLINA , 534 U.S. 246 (2002), 01/09/02
•KELO, SUSETTE, ET AL. v. NEW LONDON, CT, ET AL. , 545 U.S. 469 (2005), 06/23/05
•KIMBROUGH, DERRICK v. UNITED STATES , , 12/10/07
•LAWRENCE, JOHN G., ET AL. v. TEXAS , 539 U.S. 558 (2003), 06/26/03
•LOCKE, GOV. OF WA, ET AL. v. DAVEY, JOSHUA , 540 U.S. 712 (2004), 02/25/04
•LOPEZ v. MONTEREY COUNTY , 525 U.S. 266 (1999), 01/20/99
•LOPEZ, JOSE A. v. GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. , 549 U.S. 47 (2006), 12/05/06
•M. L. B. v. S. L. J., individually and as next friend of the minor children, S. L. J. and M. , 519 U.S. 102 (1996), 12/16/96
•MASTROBUONO et al. v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., et al. , 514 U.S. 52 (1995), 03/06/95
•McFARLAND v. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION , 512 U.S. 849 (1994), 06/30/94
•MEdIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC., ET AL. , 549 U.S. 118 (2007), 01/09/07
•MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 544 U.S. 660 (2005), 06/13/05
•MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. COCKRELL, DIR. TX DCJ , 537 U.S. 322 (2003), 02/25/03
•MINNESOTA, ET AL. v. MILLE LACS BAND, ETC., ET AL , 526 U.S. 172 (1999), 03/24/99
•MITCHELL, AMANDA v. UNITED STATES , 526 U.S. 314 (1999), 04/05/99
•MORSE et al. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA et al. , 517 U.S. 186 (1996), 03/27/96
•MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT et al. v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU et al. , 508 U.S. 286 (1993), 06/01/93
•NASA, ET AL. v. FED. LABOR REL. AUTH., ET AL , 527 U.S. 229 (1999), 06/17/99
•NEGUSIE, DANIEL G. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN. , , 03/03/09
•NIXON, MO ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. SHRINK MO GOVT. PAC, ET AL. , 528 U.S. 377 (2000), 01/24/00
•NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., et al. v. COUNTY OF KENT, MICHIGAN, et al. , 510 U.S. 355 (1994), 01/24/94
•O'NEAL v. McANINCH, WARDEN , 513 U.S. 432 (1995), 02/21/95
•OUBRE v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. , 522 U.S. 422 (1998), 01/26/98
•PA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS, NANCY D. , 542 U.S. 129 (2004), 06/14/04
•PANETTI, SCOTT L. v. QUATERMAN, DIR., TX DCJ , , 06/28/07
•PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, MAYOLA , 549 U.S. 346 (2007), 02/20/07
•POWELL v. NEVADA , 511 U.S. 79 (1994), 03/30/94
•PRESLEY v. GEORGIA , , 01/19/10
•PRESTON, ARNOLD M. v. FERRER, ALEX E. , , 02/20/08
•PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY et al. , 511 U.S. 700 (1994), 05/31/94
•RIGGINS v. NEVADA , 504 U.S. 127 (1992), 05/18/92
•ROELL, JOSEPH C., ET AL. v. WITHROW, JON MICHAEL , 538 U.S. 580 (2003), 04/29/03
•ROTHGERY, WALTER A. v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TX , , 06/23/08
•ROWLAND, FORMER DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, UNIT II MEN'S , 506 U.S. 194 (1993), 01/12/93
•RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. v. MORAN, DEBRA, ET AL. , 536 U.S. 355 (2002), 06/20/02
•SCARBOROUGH, RANDALL C. v. PRINCIPI, SEC VETERANS AFFAIRS , 541 U.S. 401 (2004), 05/03/04
•SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. KMART CORP. , 511 U.S. 222 (1994), 05/16/94
•SHAFER, WESLEY A. v. SOUTH CAROLINA , 532 U.S. 36 (2001), 03/20/01
•SHALALA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL v. IL COUNCIL, LONG TERM CARE , 529 U.S. 1 (2000), 02/29/00
•SMALL, GARY S. v. UNITED STATES , 544 U.S. 385 (2005), 04/26/05
•SNYDER, ALLEN v. LOUISIANA , , 03/19/08
•STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. v. CAMPBELL, CURTIS, ET UX. , 538 U.S. 408 (2003), 04/07/03
•STENBERG, NE ATTY. GEN. v. CARHART, LEROY , 530 U.S. 914 (2000), 06/28/00
•STEWART v. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL , 523 U.S. 637 (1998), 05/18/98
•TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING , 535 U. S. 302 (2002), 04/23/02
•TENNARD, ROBERT J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 542 U.S. 274 (2004), 06/24/04
•TENNESSEE v. LANE, GEORGE, ET AL. , 541 U.S. 509 (2004), 05/17/04
•THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, dba THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL v. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES , 512 U.S. 504 (1994), 06/24/94
•THOMPSON v. KEOHANE, WARDEN, et al. , 516 U.S. 99 (1996)., 11/29/95
•TN STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORP. v. HOOD, PAMELA L. , 541 U.S. 440 (2004), 05/17/04
•TORY, ULYSSES, ET AL. v. COCHRAN, JOHNNIE L. , 544 U.S. 734 (2005), 05/31/05
•U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al. , 514 U.S. 779 (1995), 05/22/95
•UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK, GRAYDON E., ET AL. , , 05/17/10
•UNITED STATES v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE , 537 U.S. 465 (2003), 03/04/03
•UNITED STATES v. CRAFT, SANDRA L. , 535 U.S. 274 (2002), 04/17/02
•UNITED STATES v. BOOKER, FREDDIE J. , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), 01/12/05
•VARITY CORP. v. HOWE et al. , 516 U.S. 489 (1996), 03/19/96
•VIRGINIA v. BLACK, BARRY E., ET AL. , 538 U.S. 343 (2003), 04/07/03
Concur in part, dissent in part
•ANZA, JOSEPH, ET AL. v. IDEAL STEEL SUPPLY CORP. , 547 U.S. 451 (2006), 06/05/06
•AT&T CORP. v. IOWA UTILITIES BD. , , 01/25/99
•BANKS, DELMA, JR. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ , 540 U.S. 668 (2004), 02/24/04
•BATES, DENNIS, ET AL. v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC , 544 U.S. 431 (2005), 04/27/05
•CAMPBELL v. LOUISIANA , 523 U.S. 392 (1998), 04/21/98
•CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S. v. USDC DC , 542 U.S. 367 (2004), 06/24/04
•CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION , , 01/21/10
•COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION , 518 U.S. 604 (1996), 06/26/96
•CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. EASTERWOOD , 507 U.S. 658 (1993), 04/21/93
•CUOMO, ATT'Y GEN. OF NY v. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOC., ET AL. , , 06/29/09
•DAVIS, ADRIAN M. v. WASHINGTON , 547 U.S. 813 (2006), 06/19/06
•DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. , 518 U.S. 727 (1996), 06/28/96
•GRUTTER, BARBARA v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL. , 539 U.S. 306 (2003), 06/23/03
•HILLSIDE DAIRY, ET AL. v. LYONS, SEC., FOOD AND AGRIC. , 539 U.S. 59 (2003), 06/09/03
•HOLDER, individually and in his official capacity as COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR BLE v. HALL et al. , 512 U.S. 874 (1994), 06/30/94
•KIMEL, J. DANIEL, ET AL. v. FL BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL. , , 01/11/00
•McCONNELL, SENATOR, ET AL. v. FEC, ET AL. , 540 U.S. 93 (2003), 12/10/03
•MEACHAM, CLIFFORD B., ET AL. v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LAB., ET AL. , , 06/19/08
•NATL. CABLE TV ASSN., INC. v. GULF POWER CO., ET AL. , 534 U.S. 327 (2002), 01/16/02
•NEW YORK, ET AL. v. FERC, ET AL. , 535 U.S. 1 (2002), 03/04/02
•NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUN. UTIL. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. , , 06/22/09
•PENRY, JOHNNY PAUL v. JOHNSON, DIR. TX DCJ , 532 U.S. 782 (2001), 06/04/01
•SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. REDDING, APRIL , , 06/25/09
•SPECTOR, DOUGLAS, ET AL. v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. , 545 U.S. 119 (2005), 06/06/05
•UNITED STATES v. REORGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., et al. , 518 U.S. 213 (1996), 06/20/96
•UNITED STATES v. JAMES DANIEL GOOD REAL PROPERTY et al. , 510 U.S. 43 (1993), 12/13/93
•UNITED STATES v. ALASKA , 474 U.S. 1044 (1986), 06/19/97
•UNITED STATES v. O'HAGAN , U.S. 642 (1997), 06/25/97
•UNITED STATES v. HATTER, JUDGE, ET AL. , 532 U.S. 557 (2001), 05/21/01
•UTAH, ET AL. v. EVANS, SEC. OF COMMERCE , 536 U.S. 452 (2002), 06/20/02

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas

 

[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

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

 

[BenNatuf]

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

hmmmmm... he makes his decissions based on the constitution, the law, the legal briefs, the amicus briefs, the arguments the litigants present. And he does it all without posturing. There are a few reasons a justice might ask a question given all the information they already have...

1. To elicit a different argument in support of the way they want to vote that has not been presented.

2. To posture and set up the justification for their dissenting opinion.

3. To expose the weaknesses in the arguments for others to see.

4. They like to watch the litigants squirm.

Do you honestly believe the justices don't know the answers BEFORE they ask the questions?

 

[rightwinger]

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

hmmmmm... he makes his decissions based on the constitution, the law, the legal briefs, the amicus briefs, the arguments the litigants present. And he does it all without posturing. There are a few reasons a justice might ask a question given all the information they already have...

1. To elicit a different argument in support of the way they want to vote that has not been presented.

2. To posture and set up the justification for their dissenting opinion.

3. To expose the weaknesses in the arguments for others to see.

4. They like to watch the litigants squirm.

Do you honestly believe the justices don't know the answers BEFORE they ask the questions?

I am merely pointing out that Thomas has a unique ability to perform his job that no Justice has had in 40 years. No other Justice has comparable skills

Thomas is truly "One of a kind"

 

[BenNatuf]

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

hmmmmm... he makes his decissions based on the constitution, the law, the legal briefs, the amicus briefs, the arguments the litigants present. And he does it all without posturing. There are a few reasons a justice might ask a question given all the information they already have...

1. To elicit a different argument in support of the way they want to vote that has not been presented.

2. To posture and set up the justification for their dissenting opinion.

3. To expose the weaknesses in the arguments for others to see.

4. They like to watch the litigants squirm.

Do you honestly believe the justices don't know the answers BEFORE they ask the questions?

I am merely pointing out that Thomas has a unique ability to perform his job that no Justice has had in 40 years. No other Justice has comparable skills

Thomas is truly "One of a kind"

They all possess the skill, the others just possess enough hubris to strut.