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

[BenNatuf]

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.

does freedom of speech stop before elections? By what authority to politicians deign to restrict anyones political speech at any time?

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

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

foolish liberal, states don't have rights, they have authority, and in the instance of borne arms, they don't even have that.

 

[BenNatuf]

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".

How dare she not stay in the kitchen!

 

[BenNatuf]

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

**gasp** he doesn't play court politics...

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Oh, they know that, it doesn't fit the meme though.

 

[CMike]

This is another idiotic threat.

The justices know all the arguements already. They are in the arguements that are filed with the court. Also, by the time it gets to the US Supreme Court, it has been thru several other courts.

At the time it gets to SCOTUS all the arguements are already known. What is the point of asking a question if you don't have a need to ask a question?

Thomas, as has been shown, has written numerous opinons on cases. That's the voice that matters. When he is in chambers with the other justices is when they discuss the case.

I think Thomas is a great example. I wish more justices and politicians for that matter would listen more than they speak.

During the court he doesn't have to convince anyone of anything. The parties have to convince the justices.

 

[CMike]

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

That's because all the arguements are in the court documents, as well as him hearing the answers to whatever questions are asked, plus reading the rulings of the lower courts.

 

[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..

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.

It's not surprising that you contradict yourself in the very same post. Tearing down established law and precedence is fine in the case you like..but not so much in the case you don't.

There's no way to have a serious discussion here.

 

[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".

How dare she not stay in the kitchen!

That you are so flippant about conflict of interest issues makes your point of view on this matter, laughable.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

It's not surprising that you contradict yourself in the very same post. Tearing down established law and precedence is fine in the case you like..but not so much in the case you don't.

There's no way to have a serious discussion here.

silly liberal, there is no contradiction.

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

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

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

 

[Jroc]

just exactly how much ice is being black supposed to cut with me, ben?[/font][/size][/color]

0

 

[BenNatuf]

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".

How dare she not stay in the kitchen!

That you are so flippant about conflict of interest issues makes your point of view on this matter, laughable.

So, you are now going to claim that a person can be assigned a conflict of interest based on what thier spouse is doing. Do they get brownie points if you agree with what their spouse is doing?

 

[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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

 

[jillian]

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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

i know. racist rightwingnuts like saying that because it deflects from thomas' incompetence.

 

[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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

So IYO, because I am African American, I have less freedom of speech/freedom of thought than you, who I assume to be white?

 

[Jroc]

The thing is these same people that attack Clarence Thomas, a man that should be looked up to by African Americans for his accomplishments, even more so considering were he came from (unlike Obama) would defend and make excuses for some looser simply because they were a minority or come from a underprivileged background. It makes no sense, it's all about ideology that’s it. If he were liberal he'd be praised.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

i know. racist rightwingnuts like saying that because it deflects from thomas' incompetence.

If you only knew how much of a fool you are...

It's funny, do keep trying.

The man is extremely competent, a good jurist, and writes pretty good opinions. Not sure myself, but a poster earlier commented on how he's the ONLY SCOTUS justice to write his own opinions instead of pawning them off on his clerks. But you just go right on thinking he's stupid because he refuses to allow you to own his opinions. You've been exposed as what you are, just another lib who thinks the black man owes you some loyalty and are offended when they don't stay on your ideological plantation. Bob Byrd would be proud!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

If Mrs. Thomas is selling access to the ear of a Supreme court justice, that bears looking into. But I doubt that is what is going on. She has been a member of the Washington DC power scene for years, even before she even met him.

She also has access to large numbers of Republican party animals.

And in all of the decisions that have been mentioned in this thread, I don't believe anyone can really say Thomas has been bought. His opinions have been pretty clear for years. He is very consistant that the original text of a law or a constitutional provision should be the determinate in any case, and that when an act contradicts the plain text, it is the text that should govern matters.

As for Stare Decisis, while that is useful and good for some matters, if we have Stare Decisis in matters like the Masses case, or Plessy v Ferguson, or other cases where case law goes against constitutional text, it is the text that matters, not a history of bad judgements.

 

[Jroc]

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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

i know. racist rightwingnuts like saying that because it deflects from thomas' incompetence.

Nope I've never called you a racist because I don't believe that to be the case and the people that have done it are no better the liberals who consistently used that tactic far..far more than any conservative would. We don't have to do that because we are right in our views.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.

So IYO, because I am African American, I have less freedom of speech/freedom of thought than you, who I assume to be white?

You have all the freedom of speech i do. So what? Your opinion of Thomas is partially based on his race, which you think he is a traitor to and its why you hate him so much. being conservative while black is practically a criminal offence with liberals... especially black liberals. Thats one I know a little something about

Frankly the vitriol I see from the black community toward other blacks who deign to leave the plantation is pretty fucking disgusting. And thats all I see here. And yes, I am white, my wife is black, and 4 of my 6 kids are black, so yeah, i see this disgusting shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

 

[jillian]

If Mrs. Thomas is selling access to the ear of a Supreme court justice, that bears looking into. But I doubt that is what is going on. She has been a member of the Washington DC power scene for years, even before she even met him.

She also has access to large numbers of Republican party animals.

And in all of the decisions that have been mentioned in this thread, I don't believe anyone can really say Thomas has been bought. His opinions have been pretty clear for years. He is very consistant that the original text of a law or a constitutional provision should be the determinate in any case, and that when an act contradicts the plain text, it is the text that should govern matters.

As for Stare Decisis, while that is useful and good for some matters, if we have Stare Decisis in matters like the Masses case, or Plessy v Ferguson, or other cases where case law goes against constitutional text, it is the text that matters, not a history of bad judgements.

it is supposed to be an extraordinary remedy to overturn existing caselaw.

thomas is a hack.