Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

[rightwinger]

Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

100
Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.

 

[jillian]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

 

[xsited1]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

 

[jillian]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

 

[xsited1]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

I hope you know I'm just kidding. I really don't know enough about him to say. But I do know that when I've said that Barack Obama is not equipped to be President I've been called a racist by many people.

 

[jillian]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

I hope you know I'm just kidding. I really don't know enough about him to say. But I do know that when I've said that Barack Obama is not equipped to be President I've been called a racist by many people.

well, about the president... your opinion isn't shared by 50% of the country. but no worries.
i do know you're kidding though about thomas.

(who still was never equipped to be a supreme court justice).

 

[GHook93]

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

100
Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.

 

[Ropey]

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

He gags himself to keep himself out of trouble because he is not able. The proof is on the table.

America will, in time, learn to remove affirmative action which should be ordered by ability, not color. The time is coming, but AA was important. But not so much anymore.

Obama should be the proof that affirmative action's necessity is greatly lessening.

IMHO, Thomas should never have been sent to the SC.

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

100
Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.

Then post the shenanigans that make the thread Bulls**t please.

 

[rightwinger]

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

100
Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.

I would say BS also...

It is amazing that anyone could sit for five years and not even raise a rudimentary question. Almost like an Urban Legend that is too ridiculous to believe

If anyone can find a link contradicting the OP, I would like to see it

 

[GHook93]

He gags himself to keep himself out of trouble because he is not able. The proof is on the table.

I love it one blog source says he never speaks and people just believe it! Amazing!

America will, in time, learn to remove affirmative action which should be ordered by ability, not color. The time is coming, but AA was important. But not so much anymore.

Getting rid of affirmative action huh? You do know this is something Thomas is for! He believes that affirmative actions and granting contracts based on race runs contrary to the equal protection clause!

And just like Obama becoming President had nothing to do with AA, Thomas's election to the Supeme Court had nothing to do with AA!

.

IMHO, Thomas should never have been sent to the SC.

I read a few of Thomas's opinions and dissents and I like them. Well put together. Jillian is right he sways from Stare Decisis a bunch, but if justices never did that we would still have the Separate But Equal Doctrine! Contrary to public perception he is far from stupid. The reason he sways from stare decisis is because he is a true constitutionalist (unlike Scalia who uses that ideology when it fits his needs) and he rules based mostly on that ideology vs Stare Decisis. Case law many times needs to be overturned!

Lastly the left has been after Thomas for years, so I doubt the truthfulness from an obvious leftist article by a leftist with an agenda!

True Thomas doesn't speak up enough or write enough opinions, but attacking a Black man who grew up in poverty, but still doesn't believe in state supported discriminatory programs like affirmative actions, speaks volumes for his ethics!

 

[jillian]

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

i'm pretty sure it's true. people have been saying for years he doesn't ask questions. he's attempted to justify it by saying that he a) thinks it's impolite and that they should be allowed to speak; b) there is nothing he needs them to answer that he can't find out from the papers; and c) he may or may not decide a case based on arguments raised by counsel.

in fact, attorneys have been angry for a long time at not being given the opportunity to respond if he doesn't intend to rely on an argument that's already been raised.

 

[martybegan]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

So because he doesnt believe in your views on judcial power, he is therfore unintelligent, and an emarassment.

Please remember that while verbal pleadings are an important part of a case, the written documentation in a supreme court case is far far more important.

I wonder if you would be so critical if the name of the justice was "Souter" or "Ginsberg"

 

[jillian]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

So because he doesnt believe in your views on judcial power, he is therfore unintelligent, and an emarassment.

Please remember that while verbal pleadings are an important part of a case, the written documentation in a supreme court case is far far more important.

I wonder if you would be so critical if the name of the justice was "Souter" or "Ginsberg"

no. he is unintelligent. did i say scalia is unintelligent? did i say alito or roberts is unintelligent?

stop projecting. just because YOU feel that way about everyone who disagrees with YOU, doesn't mean I do.

oh, and the "written documentation" in a supreme court case IS the pleadings, the entire record on appeal and the memoranda of law done for the USSC. so i haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the justices have the right to ask questions outside of the legal issues raised if they see one that hasn't been addressed, but only thomas, because he doesn't believe in or understand stare decisis doesn't raise those issues in open court.

as for what constitutes the record before the court. thanks for the advice. i'll remember it next time i'm before the second circuit.

 

[GHook93]

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

Justice Clarence Thomas's 5-year silence: By the numbers - The Week

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His "epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona

40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor

133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That's more than two questions per minute. "Thomas isn't wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

100
Average number of questions per hourlong argument asked by Supreme Court justices from 1972 to 1987. "The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," says Professor Johnson.

I would say BS also...

It is amazing that anyone could sit for five years and not even raise a rudimentary question. Almost like an Urban Legend that is too ridiculous to believe

If anyone can find a link contradicting the OP, I would like to see it

I will admit, if these story is true, I will change all my beliefs on Thomas's competency and fitness on the bench and finally give Jillian from props for winning that arguement!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

Why? Because he's black? What the hell's the matter with you. Geeze, it's 2011. Get over that shit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who cares how many times he "speaks"? WTF?

You fuckers are derranged.

 

[martybegan]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

So because he doesnt believe in your views on judcial power, he is therfore unintelligent, and an emarassment.

Please remember that while verbal pleadings are an important part of a case, the written documentation in a supreme court case is far far more important.

I wonder if you would be so critical if the name of the justice was "Souter" or "Ginsberg"

no. he is unintelligent. did i say scalia is unintelligent? did i say alito or roberts is unintelligent?

stop projecting. just because YOU feel that way about everyone who disagrees with YOU, doesn't mean I do.

oh, and the "written documentation" in a supreme court case IS the pleadings, the entire record on appeal and the memoranda of law done for the USSC. so i haven't a clue what you're talking about.

the justices have the right to ask questions outside of the legal issues raised if they see one that hasn't been addressed, but only thomas, because he doesn't believe in or understand stare decisis doesn't raise those issues in open court.

as for what constitutes the record before the court. thanks for the advice. i'll remember it next time i'm before the second circuit.

So what your saying is that all the justices have to go on for a decsion is whatever is said in front of the court, there is no additonal documentation, or if there is, the whole thing has to be read, out loud, in front of all the justices?

From the article, it seems he doesnt raise ANY issues in open court, not just those relating to stare decisis.

and what the hell am i projecting? I asked a question.

 

[Ropey]

I love it one blog source says he never speaks and people just believe it! Amazing!

I agree with a prior view that this extension supports GHook. You called it in error and you could be correct. So, please support that the data is incorrect. That's all I am asking.

You can accept that I like proof of some sort? No?

The OP had proof. You just call it bullshit and walk off without citing?

 

[GHook93]

Who cares how many times he "speaks"? WTF?

You fuckers are derranged.

Are you serious? You do know that a crucial part of a supreme court justice's job is to ask questions?

If this is true, and I am extremely skeptical, then its a huge issue and goes directly to his competency!

And this is coming from a Thomas supporter like me!

 

[jillian]

hey, Ghook, it isn't just in the link used in the o/p

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html?_r=1

law.com wrote about it three years ago:


Two years and 142 cases have passed since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments. It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court's unceasing inquiries.

Hardly a case goes by without eight justices peppering lawyers with questions. Oral arguments offer justices the chance to resolve nagging doubts about a case, probe its weaknesses or make a point to their colleagues.

Law.com - Justice Thomas Silent Through More Than Two Years of Supreme Court Arguments

abc news covered it in 2007, saying,

Since Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court 16 years ago, he has largely remained silent, and his silence has become part of his mythology

Clarence Thomas: A Silent Justice Speaks Out - ABC News

even BET covered it today, though they relied on the NYT Article.

http://www.bet.com/News/TheSilentJu...ferrer={9624097D-F2F3-4D5C-B513-798AEAD259B7}