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

[BenNatuf]

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.

Word.

The really disgusting thing is they could simply disagree with him and still hold him up as an example of what any person can do irregardless of color. The mans story is compelling.

 

[jillian]

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.

and i don't recall ever saying you were a racist.

but the imbecile i was responding to sure implied it. hence my comment.

as for being correct in my views. i know i'm correct about thomas.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

So was Brown a bad decision? How about Roe? For that matter, Marbury?

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

cases that go to the supreme court are by definition extra ordinary. SCOTUS is not sworn to uphold stare decisis and they are not bound by precedents. They have one and only one controlling authority... the constitution. You don't like Thomas because he does his job the way a SCOTUS justice is supposed to do it. Among other reasons.

 

[jillian]

So was Brown a bad decision? How about Roe? For that matter, Marbury?

roe comes from the same line of caselaw as griswold v connecticut and loving v virginia. it did follow precedent.

as for plessy, the fact that you know the name of the case shows how rare it was for caselaw to be overturned.

if i were you, i'd go re-read my post. i never said it NEVER happens. it is, however, rare. and given that our entire legal system is based on common law, each case is reliant on the caselaw that comes before it.

do i really need to explain that?

 

[BenNatuf]

So was Brown a bad decision? How about Roe? For that matter, Marbury?

Brown not so much, Roe horrible, Marbury correct, but largely misinterpreted.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

But even Griswold overturned precedent.

And why doesn't Griswold apply to Marijuana?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Loving is an interesting case too. It overthrew years of case law.
Loving is another clear case I should have brought to your attention, rather than you bringing it to mine.

from Wiki on the case

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.


The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (née Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3][4] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975),[5] were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia.

Essentially, Loving was in flagrant violation of the plain text of the 14th Amendment. But it was part of a long tradition going back to pre revolutionary days. It had half a century of case law on it.

But the justices said, in effect, case law shmase law, the constitution says one thing, the VA statute says another, so the VA statute is declared void.
Loving proves my point, rather than yours.

 

[BenNatuf]

So was Brown a bad decision? How about Roe? For that matter, Marbury?

roe comes from the same line of caselaw as griswold v connecticut and loving v virginia. it did follow precedent.

it did no such thing. It invented federal law out of holecloth where none existed and the congress had not spoken. The court has no authority to insert their judgement in the place of congressional action or inaction. It was quite possibly the worst decission of the latter half of the 20th century.

if i were you, i'd go re-read my post. i never said it NEVER happens. it is, however, rare. and given that our entire legal system is based on common law, each case is reliant on the caselaw that comes before it.

do i really need to explain that?

Our entire legal system is not based on the common law, our tort system is. The rest is built on written laws and the constitution. Did your law degree come in a box with candied corn?

 

[BenNatuf]

Loving is an interesting case too. It overthrew years of case law.
Loving is another clear case I should have brought to your attention, rather than you bringing it to mine.

from Wiki on the case

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.


The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (née Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3][4] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975),[5] were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia.

Essentially, Loving was in flagrant violation of the plain text of the 14th Amendment. But it was part of a long tradition going back to pre revolutionary days. It had half a century of case law on it.

But the justices said, in effect, case law shmase law, the constitution says one thing, the VA statute says another, so the VA statute is declared void.
Loving proves my point, rather than yours.

yeah, but they followed the precedent they broke later!

Stare decisis and precedent arte a stupid fucking reasons for the SCOTUS to not overturn a law in conflict with the constitution. So says Marbury, so says me.

 

[jillian]

So was Brown a bad decision? How about Roe? For that matter, Marbury?

roe comes from the same line of caselaw as griswold v connecticut and loving v virginia. it did follow precedent.

it did no such thing. It invented federal law out of holecloth where none existed and the congress had not spoken. The court has no authority to insert their judgement in the place of congressional action or inaction. It was quite possibly the worst decission of the latter half of the 20th century.

if i were you, i'd go re-read my post. i never said it NEVER happens. it is, however, rare. and given that our entire legal system is based on common law, each case is reliant on the caselaw that comes before it.

do i really need to explain that?

Our entire legal system is not based on the common law, our tort system is. The rest is built on written laws and the constitution. Did your law degree come in a box with candied corn?

you don't know what you're talking about, dunce.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The Loving Family

 

[BenNatuf]

roe comes from the same line of caselaw as griswold v connecticut and loving v virginia. it did follow precedent.

it did no such thing. It invented federal law out of holecloth where none existed and the congress had not spoken. The court has no authority to insert their judgement in the place of congressional action or inaction. It was quite possibly the worst decission of the latter half of the 20th century.

if i were you, i'd go re-read my post. i never said it NEVER happens. it is, however, rare. and given that our entire legal system is based on common law, each case is reliant on the caselaw that comes before it.

do i really need to explain that?

Our entire legal system is not based on the common law, our tort system is. The rest is built on written laws and the constitution. Did your law degree come in a box with candied corn?

you don't know what you're talking about, dunce.

If you're a lawyer you're a poor one. Legal aid?

the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, 'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

didn't they teach you that? Moron.

"Common Law" Defined

 

[jillian]

it did no such thing. It invented federal law out of holecloth where none existed and the congress had not spoken. The court has no authority to insert their judgement in the place of congressional action or inaction. It was quite possibly the worst decission of the latter half of the 20th century.

Our entire legal system is not based on the common law, our tort system is. The rest is built on written laws and the constitution. Did your law degree come in a box with candied corn?

you don't know what you're talking about, dunce.

If you're a lawyer you're a poor one. Legal aid?

the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, 'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

didn't they teach you that? Moron.

"Common Law" Defined

why does a 12 year old who knows nothing about law think he can call me names and insult my ability?

pretty funny, little boy.

come back when you know something. or are you just mentally ill?

and that 4 points really stung. oh noooooooo.

btw, my 13 year old son knows more about law than you and has more understanding about the constitution.

but then again, he actually reads.

 

[Jroc]

Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXeUfVhDVUM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXeUfVhDVUM[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRKgOjNPxIM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRKgOjNPxIM[/ame]

 

[jillian]

Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.

not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.

finding that corporations are people for first amendment purposes was the most activist decision i can recall in my lifetime.

 

[Jroc]

Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.

not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.

finding that corporations are people for first amendment purposes was the most activist decision i can recall in my lifetime.

What are they if not people? Are unions people?

 

[BenNatuf]

you don't know what you're talking about, dunce.

If you're a lawyer you're a poor one. Legal aid?

the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, 'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

didn't they teach you that? Moron.

"Common Law" Defined

why does a 12 year old who knows nothing about law think he can call me names and insult my ability?

pretty funny, little boy.

oohh... that stings

come back when you know something.

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know already. I've seen the gist of your legal opinions on here and franlky they're weak, poorly thought out and lack reason. But I'm sure you've heard that before.

and that 4 points really stung. oh noooooooo.

Oh fucking well.

btw, my 13 year old son knows more about law than you and has more understanding about the constitution.

Than you? I don't doubt it.

why not just admit you were wrong? Oh, thats right, you're too dense to know it. By the way dumbass , I belive YOU were the fucking moron who openned with the "dunce" comment... of course that was AFTER I corrected your obviously WRONG statement. You're a sorry excuse for a lawyer if you are one (which so far i doubt as you've shown no ability to make any legal arguments) and I hope your legal aid clients have the good sence to see it and go elsewhere.

 

[BenNatuf]

Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.

not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.

finding that corporations are people for first amendment purposes was the most activist decision i can recall in my lifetime.

And I thought you liked stare decisis and that whole staying with precedent thing. Please, make up your mind if you have one.

The assemblage of persons known as a corporation do not lose their other 1st amendment rights by virtue of the purpose of their chosen assemblage. You do know a corporation is an "assembly" don't you?

 

[jillian]

waaaaaaaahhh..





poor little boy. all crying and upset.