SCOTUS Challenge to the Liberal Intellectual Elite

[The Rabbi]

If you're going to ask people to defend someone else's proposition, you might want to include the particular proposition. "Thomas is as shallow and stupid as purported by the Left" is incredibly vague, since many lefties don't consider him particularly stupid at all. Is there a particular claim about Thomas's intelligence that catches your attention?

Besides the fact that almost everything I've heard from the left about Thomas is a lie?

The Left has always hated Thomas because he's an uppity ****** who won't stay on the liberal plantation.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Logically, the burden of proof is to show Thomas is qualified, not to show him unqualified. Then again, logically, it's all irrelevant. Thomas has been on the court for two decades.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've heard that the American Left (the Liberal Intellectual Elite) holds SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas in low regard and finds it funny he's even on the Court.

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

What proof do you have he's qualified? Name a case that he presided over as judge before Republicans put him on the Supreme Court.

You mean like Kagen?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you're going to ask people to defend someone else's proposition, you might want to include the particular proposition. "Thomas is as shallow and stupid as purported by the Left" is incredibly vague, since many lefties don't consider him particularly stupid at all. Is there a particular claim about Thomas's intelligence that catches your attention?

Besides the fact that almost everything I've heard from the left about Thomas is a lie?

No, not besides that. When I asked if there was something in particular that caught your attention, I didn't mean "besides... almost everything [you've] heard". Do you actually want anyone to answer your question, or do you want to talk about how people haven't answered your question?

Actually several leftists here have made the claim, the first to come to mind is Jillian.

 

[ladyliberal]

Besides the fact that almost everything I've heard from the left about Thomas is a lie?

No, not besides that. When I asked if there was something in particular that caught your attention, I didn't mean "besides... almost everything [you've] heard". Do you actually want anyone to answer your question, or do you want to talk about how people haven't answered your question?

Actually several leftists here have made the claim, the first to come to mind is Jillian.

I'm sure lots of leftists have said lots of things, the vast majority of which I've never heard. Clearly, plenty of people have said plenty of things about Thomas that aren't true.

 

[daveman]

For someone that works with the precise meanings of words, this isn't a comforting statement.

Thomas, who, when asked by interviewer Bryan Garner whether he would describe himself as a word lover, replied: "Not particularly. ... I like buses and football and cars."

And this makes me think he is clever enough to avoid any public utterances that would cement the view that he is a less than stellar thinker.

So you've already made up your mind that he's dumb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you're going to ask people to defend someone else's proposition, you might want to include the particular proposition. "Thomas is as shallow and stupid as purported by the Left" is incredibly vague, since many lefties don't consider him particularly stupid at all. Is there a particular claim about Thomas's intelligence that catches your attention?

Besides the fact that almost everything I've heard from the left about Thomas is a lie?

No, not besides that. When I asked if there was something in particular that caught your attention, I didn't mean "besides... almost everything [you've] heard". Do you actually want anyone to answer your question, or do you want to talk about how people haven't answered your question?

Simple.

Post the opinions that show us why you think him unqualified along with your commentary or STFU.

Yes, it's that simple.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For someone that works with the precise meanings of words, this isn't a comforting statement.

Thomas, who, when asked by interviewer Bryan Garner whether he would describe himself as a word lover, replied: "Not particularly. ... I like buses and football and cars."

And this makes me think he is clever enough to avoid any public utterances that would cement the view that he is a less than stellar thinker.

Thomas hasn't asked a question at oral argument in more than five years.

So, there's two for ya.

I posted the first 2 sentences from his concurring opinion in US v Lopez, you posted dick.

All you have is the thoughtless Liberal "Thomas is stew pit because we say so" talking point.

You've got nothing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Logically, the burden of proof is to show Thomas is qualified, not to show him unqualified. Then again, logically, it's all irrelevant. Thomas has been on the court for two decades.

Post his opinion with your blistering commentary or STFU.

That simple

 

[jillian]

I've heard that the American Left (the Liberal Intellectual Elite) holds SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas in low regard and finds it funny he's even on the Court.

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

i don't have to post his decisions, ignorant frankie: he doesn't believe in stare decisis, which is the foundation of our entire common law system;

that alone makes lawyers and judges alike think the man is an idiot.

he also never asks questions from the bench because he's too ignorant to frame questions, which again lets people who actually know what they're doing know that he's not up to the task.

as for analyzing his decisions, you wouldn't understand the analysis anyway, so it wouldn't be worth the bother.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does having contempt for a conservative black supreme court justice count?

And as you can see by the dearth of posts from the left highlighting Thomas's opinions, all they have is they blind hatred

 

[Inthemiddle]

Post his opinion with your blistering commentary or STFU.

That simple

1) I never said he was unqualified.

2) You are making an illogical demand. Burden of proof falls on one claiming he is qualified.

 

[daveman]

Post his opinion with your blistering commentary or STFU.

That simple

1) I never said he was unqualified.

2) You are making an illogical demand. Burden of proof falls on one claiming he is qualified.

Funny how that didn't apply to Obama's qualifications, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

I don’t know about ‘stupid’ but Thomas is shallow to the extent he’s a partisan hack and places ideology over the Constitution accordingly.*

A tedious and plodding conservative ideologue, Justice Thomas’ reputation in the legal community is that of an unoriginal and uninspired jurist. Adhering blindly to the contrived ‘doctrine’ of ‘originalism,’ he has succeeded in establishing a reputation as a rightist activist justice.

A recent example of Thomas’ radical extremism can be found in McDonald v. Chicago, the case incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. Although Thomas joined the Court in incorporating the Amendment, he broke with the entire Court, along with over 100 years of settled law and judicial doctrine, to reject incorporation via Due Process and instead advocated incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to “process.” Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.

So off the map was Thomas that his fellow rightwing extremist, Justice Scalia, didn’t care to follow:

I join the Court’s opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

It’s one thing for a jurist to advocate a new or original legal theory, provided he has the case law, precedent, and documentation to back up his theory. But Thomas provided none of that, and was rejected by the Court’s other conservatives accordingly.

Indeed, Thomas’ advocacy of using the Privileges or Immunities Clause is predicated on political, not judicial, grounds. It’s nothing but a conservative ploy to undermine the doctrine of Substantive Due Process in an effort to provide a catalyst justifying overturning rulings he’s politically opposed to, such as Griswold/Roe/Casey.




*To retort: ‘liberal justices do the same thing’ isn’t on point – read one of Stevens or Kennedy’s rulings to see how it’s done.


Source for cited above:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

So he's unoriginal but apart from the majority? Do you think about this before you write/copy it?

 

[Seawytch]

Thomas ought to just wear a t-shirt that states: "Whatever Scalia said"...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

I don’t know about ‘stupid’ but Thomas is shallow to the extent he’s a partisan hack and places ideology over the Constitution accordingly.*

A tedious and plodding conservative ideologue, Justice Thomas’ reputation in the legal community is that of an unoriginal and uninspired jurist. Adhering blindly to the contrived ‘doctrine’ of ‘originalism,’ he has succeeded in establishing a reputation as a rightist activist justice.

A recent example of Thomas’ radical extremism can be found in McDonald v. Chicago, the case incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. Although Thomas joined the Court in incorporating the Amendment, he broke with the entire Court, along with over 100 years of settled law and judicial doctrine, to reject incorporation via Due Process and instead advocated incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to “process.” Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.

So off the map was Thomas that his fellow rightwing extremist, Justice Scalia, didn’t care to follow:

I join the Court’s opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

It’s one thing for a jurist to advocate a new or original legal theory, provided he has the case law, precedent, and documentation to back up his theory. But Thomas provided none of that, and was rejected by the Court’s other conservatives accordingly.

Indeed, Thomas’ advocacy of using the Privileges or Immunities Clause is predicated on political, not judicial, grounds. It’s nothing but a conservative ploy to undermine the doctrine of Substantive Due Process in an effort to provide a catalyst justifying overturning rulings he’s politically opposed to, such as Griswold/Roe/Casey.


*To retort: ‘liberal justices do the same thing’ isn’t on point – read one of Stevens or Kennedy’s rulings to see how it’s done.


Source for cited above:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Credit where due Pos rep inbound

You think this speaks to Thomas's lack of qualification when on the contrary, Thomas struck a blow for the limits to the power of the Federal Government. I mentioned the Slaughterhouse Cases in another thread on Thomas because, in essence, he harkens back to the majority opinion there.

 

[kaz]

If you're going to ask people to defend someone else's proposition, you might want to include the particular proposition. "Thomas is as shallow and stupid as purported by the Left" is incredibly vague, since many lefties don't consider him particularly stupid at all. Is there a particular claim about Thomas's intelligence that catches your attention?

While your request that a more specific argument be made is reasonable, your feigned blindness to the attitude the left has toward Thomas is ridiculous. Black conservatives are consistently vilified by the left, clearly race is the factor. The left get 90% of black vote and if that were to change in any significant way they'd be toast. So blacks are clearly warned they will be destroyed if they threaten that. Read the writings of any black conservative and they will tell you the incredible hostility they get from the left. It's just wrong. And so is pretending it's not so because it politically benefits you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Thomas ought to just wear a t-shirt that states: "Whatever Scalia said"...

This is a frequent criticism and even though the two vote in sync many times, they diverge often enough too. Scalia often rejects Thomas' novel ideas.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I've heard that the American Left (the Liberal Intellectual Elite) holds SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas in low regard and finds it funny he's even on the Court.

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

The intellectual left is just mad because they know he is smarter than they are and they are scared.