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

[rightwinger]

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.

Absolutely..


Thomas is the model Justice.......all the others are just showing off

 

[BenNatuf]

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.)

The standard for recusal for a SCOTUS justice is whether the justice himself feels he can be impartial. Your call would seem to be a call to impeach him for his opinion of himself.

 

[BenNatuf]

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

You don't hate him because he's Black, you hate him because he's rejected your racial claim of ownership on his opinion.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Absolutely..


Thomas is the model Justice.......all the others are just showing off

Tell me there Cleo, do you think the other justices ask so many questions because they DON'T know the law?

 

[Sallow]

Justice Thomas is probably going to have multiple conflict of interest issues upcoming. And it seems that neither he nor Scalia understand exactly what that means. They also do not seem to understand the Constitution and, especially in Scalia's case, seem to be judicial activists who legislate from the bench.

Not sure if the case for impeachment can be made..but it does reflect badly on the current Supreme Court.

 

[BenNatuf]

Justice Thomas is probably going to have multiple conflict of interest issues upcoming. And it seems that neither he nor Scalia understand exactly what that means. They also do not seem to understand the Constitution and, especially in Scalia's case, seem to be judicial activists who legislate from the bench.

Not sure if the case for impeachment can be made..but it does reflect badly on the current Supreme Court.

Activists? Thats hilarious.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Absolutely..


Thomas is the model Justice.......all the others are just showing off

Tell me there Cleo, do you think the other justices ask so many questions because they DON'T know the law?

You ask questions for clarification. I am sure this shows Thomas already knows all he wants to know

 

[BenNatuf]

Absolutely..


Thomas is the model Justice.......all the others are just showing off

Tell me there Cleo, do you think the other justices ask so many questions because they DON'T know the law?

You ask questions for clarification. I am sure this shows Thomas already knows all he wants to know

So you belive the other justices are so inept and ignorant of the law that they have to ask lawyers questions so they can clarify it for them?

Truth is there may be one or two legitimate questions that they need answered on occassion by the time a case reaches the SCOTUS, the rest is posturing.

 

[Sallow]

Justice Thomas is probably going to have multiple conflict of interest issues upcoming. And it seems that neither he nor Scalia understand exactly what that means. They also do not seem to understand the Constitution and, especially in Scalia's case, seem to be judicial activists who legislate from the bench.

Not sure if the case for impeachment can be made..but it does reflect badly on the current Supreme Court.

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..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Justice Thomas is probably going to have multiple conflict of interest issues upcoming. And it seems that neither he nor Scalia understand exactly what that means. They also do not seem to understand the Constitution and, especially in Scalia's case, seem to be judicial activists who legislate from the bench.

Not sure if the case for impeachment can be made..but it does reflect badly on the current Supreme Court.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell me there Cleo, do you think the other justices ask so many questions because they DON'T know the law?

You ask questions for clarification. I am sure this shows Thomas already knows all he wants to know

So you belive the other justices are so inept and ignorant of the law that they have to ask lawyers questions so they can clarify it for them?

Truth is there may be one or two legitimate questions that they need answered on occassion by the time a case reaches the SCOTUS, the rest is posturing.

As was noted before...
Asking questions, in most instances, isn't about getting information you don't know, its about steering the conversation. This can only happen if you have a direction you'd like the conversation to go. That can only happen if you have your mind made up.

Not asking questions means you're listening, not steering.

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

 

[Trajan]

no it trumped their ability to self regulate them into an abyss.


everyone has their own view of activism. it is what it is.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Why the sudden hard on toward Thomas? Since the Anita Hill thing went away 20 odd years ago, he has been quiet and working hard.

Now all the sudden we have multiple threads on him. For some reason the fax machines and the mail bots have fixed on him as a target for another lynching after ignoring him for years.

first they attack him for his silence, then they attack him for his activism.
Did one of his decisions recently cost Soros a bunch of money? It does look like the Soros astroturf machine is moving into second gear for some bad reason.

 

[Sallow]

Why the sudden hard on toward Thomas? Since the Anita Hill thing went away 20 odd years ago, he has been quiet and working hard.

Now all the sudden we have multiple threads on him. For some reason the fax machines and the mail bots have fixed on him as a target for another lynching after ignoring him for years.

first they attack him for his silence, then they attack him for his activism.
Did one of his decisions recently cost Soros a bunch of money? It does look like the Soros astroturf machine is moving into second gear for some bad reason.

Naw.

Eventually all the crappy legislation piles up. And it doesn't help his wife is a far right activist recieving bucket loads of money for her "causes" because she advertises direct access to "important people".

 

[Madeline]

Why the sudden hard on toward Thomas? Since the Anita Hill thing went away 20 odd years ago, he has been quiet and working hard.

Now all the sudden we have multiple threads on him. For some reason the fax machines and the mail bots have fixed on him as a target for another lynching after ignoring him for years.

first they attack him for his silence, then they attack him for his activism.
Did one of his decisions recently cost Soros a bunch of money? It does look like the Soros astroturf machine is moving into second gear for some bad reason.

It's possible, Baruch. I really have no idea what is on the SCOTUS calendar this term.

Meanwhile, so what? If the facts are as recounted, there are severe ethical problems with Thomas. You gonna bless that merely because he usually votes the conservative POV?

What do you plan on doing if Kagan repeats Thomas' conduct? Will it still be okay, even if a liberal does it?

 

[xsited1]

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?

They're racists.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is weird, that the two minute hate this week is directed toward Thomas. That is all. Sarah Palin must be feeling grateful to him that the Two Minute hate is no longer directed to her. Soon it will be someone else's turn. It is just weird how this works.

 

[BenNatuf]

Justice Thomas is probably going to have multiple conflict of interest issues upcoming. And it seems that neither he nor Scalia understand exactly what that means. They also do not seem to understand the Constitution and, especially in Scalia's case, seem to be judicial activists who legislate from the bench.

Not sure if the case for impeachment can be made..but it does reflect badly on the current Supreme Court.

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..

There is nothing activist about citizens united, they struck down a law based on previous precedent which found the assemblage of persons called a corporation did not lose their other first amendment rights based on the purpose of the assemblage. Now, if they had reversed the precedent and somehow found that an assemblage of persons could lose its other 1st ammendment rights based on its purpose for existing, that would have been activist, and wrong. It would seem your arguments as just a shallow as ever.

Judicial activism on the SCOTUS level is not defined by the courts doing something you or I don't agree with. It's a defined term where justices stretch the law, and the constitution beyond all reccognition by say, citing phrench law, to reach a predetermined opinion and/or write in some law that didn't exist in the process, like say Roe. The justices upholding a prior precedent and utilizing the judicial/legal philosophy of stare decisis is by definition... NOT ACTIVIST.

 

[rightwinger]

You ask questions for clarification. I am sure this shows Thomas already knows all he wants to know

So you belive the other justices are so inept and ignorant of the law that they have to ask lawyers questions so they can clarify it for them?

Truth is there may be one or two legitimate questions that they need answered on occassion by the time a case reaches the SCOTUS, the rest is posturing.

As was noted before...
Asking questions, in most instances, isn't about getting information you don't know, its about steering the conversation. This can only happen if you have a direction you'd like the conversation to go. That can only happen if you have your mind made up.

Not asking questions means you're listening, not steering.

My point exactly....Clarence Thomas is a truly unique Justice. He is the first Justice in over 40 years who has not had to "steer" once in over five years of cases.

That must be why he is such a respected legal mind