Justice Thomas...revisited!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Aug 30, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    1." All at once the enemy plan became clear; what looked like stupidity was revealed as genius, ...
    ...Jeffrey Toobin’s gripping, must-read profile of Clarence and Virginia Thomas in the New Yorker gives readers new insight ...: Toobin argues that the only Black man in public life that liberals could safely mock and despise may be on the point of bringing the Blue Empire down.

    2. In fact, Toobin suggests, Clarence Thomas may be ...able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state.In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.

    3. There are few articles of faith as firmly fixed in the liberal canon as the belief that Clarence Thomas is, to put it as bluntly as many liberals do, a dunce and a worm. ... Not only does the liberal mind perceive him as a disgusting lump of ungoverned sexual impulse; he is seen as an intellectual cipher. Thomas’ silence during oral argument before the Supreme Court is taken as obvious evidence that he has nothing to say and is perhaps a bit intimidated by the verbal fireworks exchanged by the high profile lawyers and his more, ahem, ‘qualified’ colleagues.

    4. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks.

    5. Until very recently the constitutional vision I was taught in my teens remained, as they say, hegemonic. The enlarged role of the commerce clause was uncontested and the two amendments dangled with the other dead constitutional provisions — letters of marque and reprisal, no bills of attainder, the prohibition on quartering — in constitutional limbo.

    6. ...the New Deal constitution was not as permanent or unalterable as it looked. Intellectually its foundations were shaky, and after two decades of a Clarence Thomas-led assault, the constitutional doctrines that permitted the rise of the powerful federal government could be close to collapse.

    7. The next topic for Constitutional revisionism is the expansive reading of the commerce clause that the New Deal judges used to justify the Roosevelt administration’s ambitious economic programs. The Obamacare health reform depends on that kind of reading of the commerce clause; the penumbras must stretch pretty far for the Constitution to give Congress the right to require all Americans to buy private health insurance. And if the commerce clause can be stretched this far, one must ask whether there is anything that the Constitution blocks Congress from doing.

    8. Without some rule of interpretation that the average person can understand and accept as legitimate, the Court gradually loses legitimacy in the public eye. The originalist interpretation, whatever objections can be made to it intellectually and historically, is politically compelling. It resonates with the American propensity for commonsense reasoning. To say that the Founders meant what they meant and that the first job of a judge is to be faithful to their intent is something that strikes many Americans as sensible, practical and fair.

    9. But there is another view of this amendment. The Constitution of the United States confers specific, “enumerated” powers on the Congress, and many of the things that Congress does today are not listed among those enumerated powers.

    10. This is pretty much a Tea Party wish list, and it is why the Tea Party movement is so strongly identified with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Unleashing the Tenth Amendment would move the constitutional status quo back towards the early 1930s when the “Nine Old Men” struck down one New Deal law after another. For Toobin and most New Yorker readers, it is hard to imagine an idea that more radically and totally runs against everything they believe."
    Read more: New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom | Via Meadia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,156
    Thanks Received:
    14,900
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,882
    Clarence Thomas is one of the greatest, most clear headed, and arguably the most pristine Originalist that has sat on the court since the founding. His decisions are absolutely infallible and unassailable in terms of arguing from the document itself. You might not like his decisions, but you cannot argue that he got the law wrong
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  3. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    It's morning in America.
     
  4. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    M'eh. As the "silent Justice", I can't imagine Thomas as the leader of much.

    Alito, on the other hand, while I detest his views; writes well thought out and coherent opinions that present well thought out legal arguments.
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    The original intention of the Consitution made excellent sense in 1789.

    Now?

    Not so much.
     
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,239
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,147
    Normally I ignore you CF, primarily because I believe you're rather stupid and a jerk. That aside, what makes you believe you have any background or intellectual ability to make the judgments you have made above? Do you have a JD, passed a state bar exam or even audited a law class? What is your understanding of the Philosophy of the Law (if you can even fathom what that means) vis a vis political philosophy and applied ethics?
     
  7. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    I would argue that Scalia is a great legal mind just based off of bouncing stuff of of my wife (an attorney) and her lawyer friends. Then, furthermore, on reading some of his opinions.

    You might not agree with them, but they are well written and articulated and logical and make a compelling case for "constitutionality" as he sees it. He's usually consistent.

    The impression I get from Thomas is that he doesn't really bring much to the bench other then a solid vote for the more conservative justices. His opinions are often cursory (relative to the standard expected from a SCOTUS judge) and he doesn't put out as many opinions as other justices.

    Then again, I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong and would love to hear what a legal mind has to say on the matter.

    That being said, I can't think of a significant case where Thomas has authored the majority opinion of dissent during his time in the court.
     
  8. Warrior102
    Offline

    Warrior102 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    16,554
    Thanks Received:
    4,019
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,029
    Damn - check out that "666" rep power !!!
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    (pssst...I've seen enough of your posts to know that your opinion is pretty much worthless. And even moreso when you haven't read the attached link. Why don't you give education a chance.)
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Wrong. It made great sense then.

    It makes greater sense now.

    Especially now that we can plainly see the damage caused by wandering too far from that correct path.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page