Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What, exactly, is it about his understanding of Stare Decisis is it that you take issue with?

 

[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.

What, exactly, is it about his understanding of Stare Decisis is it that you take issue with?

he doesn't believe in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Most justices only ask questions in an attempt to persuade other justices that their point of view is correct, and that most of the cases are desided before oral arguments even occur. Old did you really think that oral arguments cover something that is not in the briefs that are filed? They are nothing but tradition, pomp and circumstance.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

It seems like it was written for Thomas.

 

[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.

Most justices only ask questions in an attempt to persuade other justices that their point of view is correct, and that most of the cases are desided before oral arguments even occur. Old did you really think that oral arguments cover something that is not in the briefs that are filed? They are nothing but tradition, pomp and circumstance.

judges ask questions to test the logic of the party's position. I have never participated in a meaningless oral argument.

there is a reason judges do this. it has nothing to do with pomp and circumstance.

 

[manifold]

Nothing about Thomas ever impressed me. Not one thing.

Him keeping his trap shut is a-okay in my book.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Paint me skeptical, but I call bullshit!

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!

The stories are true, I just do not see how that makes him incompetent. Before 1986 questions from the bench were rare, and Thomas says he prefers to be polite and old school.

There is actually a pretty good debate about the issue at the NYT, and I think the various essays make some good points.

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

 

[jillian]

Nothing about Thomas ever impressed me. Not one thing.

Him keeping his trap shut is a-okay in my book.

and that is exactly why he keeps his mouth shut.

which is why he is considered ill-equipped to be a justice.

he should have learned the socratic method in law school.

 

[Synthaholic]

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

I find her being a racist to be plain ignorant.

I'm going to bet, dim bulb, that if I look at your posts, I'm going to find out you're racist trash. But no one criticizes Thomas b/c he's black. He's criticized because he's an incompetent jurist.

Nice rants, though, loon.

He's the new forum moron!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Well fuck, how did he do this then?

{SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et al., PETITIONERS v.
STEVEN PYETT et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[April 1, 2009]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., is enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974) , forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.}


14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

Hey, I understand. He's black - he HAS to obey you, his leftists massahs. He's been uppity, thinking for himself and shit - you HAVE to lie about him and smear him, think of the example he sets?

Since he is a complete idiot the only possible explanation is that he copied it off of someone else.

 

[jillian]

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.

Well fuck, how did he do this then?

{SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et al., PETITIONERS v.
STEVEN PYETT et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[April 1, 2009]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., is enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974) , forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.}


14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

Hey, I understand. He's black - he HAS to obey you, his leftists massahs. He's been uppity, thinking for himself and shit - you HAVE to lie about him and smear him, think of the example he sets?

Since he is a complete idiot the only possible explanation is that he copied it off of someone else.

no. his law clerks are smart.

unlike him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What, exactly, is it about his understanding of Stare Decisis is it that you take issue with?

he doesn't believe in it.

Yet he does,

So, again, what is your issue with his understanding of it?

 

[Jroc]

Dat cuz he black...

BTW, don't you have a cross burning to go to?

Websters abridged notes that the proper pronunciation of the word democrat is "fucking bigot."

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

Well, he's already proven he's ignorant, so no surprise there.

Thing is, thinking Thomas is stupid has nothing to do with partisanship. You will never here me say Scalia is stupid, even though I can't think of a thing we would agree upon. Ethically challenged? Absolutely. But not stupid

Ok.. The problem I have with you is you seem to think that people who have a different view then you are somehow inferior to you, which is total BS. We can disagree with someone without calling him or her "stupid" and for you too present yourself (to me anyway) as some kind of moderate is a joke. I might not agree with Mr. Thomas's methods on the court, but he's far from stupid, if you actually believe that then prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well fuck, how did he do this then?

{SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et al., PETITIONERS v.
STEVEN PYETT et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[April 1, 2009]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., is enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974) , forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.}


14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

Hey, I understand. He's black - he HAS to obey you, his leftists massahs. He's been uppity, thinking for himself and shit - you HAVE to lie about him and smear him, think of the example he sets?

Since he is a complete idiot the only possible explanation is that he copied it off of someone else.

no. his law clerks are smart.

unlike him.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[jillian]

Isn't that what I said?

it appeared you were being facetious. and i didn't say he plagerized. i said his clerks wrote it.

 

[Jroc]

Laura Ingraham clerked for Thomas, I think she knows him well.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMagqC6anEg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMagqC6anEg[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't that what I said?

it appeared you were being facetious. and i didn't say he plagerized. i said his clerks wrote it.

I was being facetious. He wrote plenty of decisions before he had law clerks, and Congress got to see all of them. Even the ABA rated him as qualified for the court, despite the political pressure not to.

 

[jillian]

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

Well, he's already proven he's ignorant, so no surprise there.

Thing is, thinking Thomas is stupid has nothing to do with partisanship. You will never here me say Scalia is stupid, even though I can't think of a thing we would agree upon. Ethically challenged? Absolutely. But not stupid

Ok.. The problem I have with you is you seem to think that people who have a different view then you are somehow inferior to you, which is total BS. We can disagree with someone without calling him or her "stupid" and for you too present yourself (to me anyway) as some kind of moderate is a joke. I might not agree with Mr. Thomas's methods on the court, but he's far from stupid, if you actually believe that then prove it.

where did i present myself as a moderate to you? i am a moderate on israel, which is what we were discussing, since i'm neither neo-con, bomb bomb bomb iran nutcase, nor terrorist apologist. but i do believe that was in pm's and i do believe that's a bannable offense.

as for the rest.. no, i don't have to prove to you that thomas is stupid. it's pretty common knowledge among lawyers and judges that he is. and i'm not going to start parsing his writings and waste my time for someone to whom it wouldn't matter anyway because you agree with him. many pretend constitutionalists do.

 

[jillian]

Laura Ingraham clerked for Thomas, I think she knows him well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMagqC6anEg

why would you reference one hack to swear for another?

do you think that's compelling or are you playing to the peanut gallery?

 

[jillian]

Isn't that what I said?

it appeared you were being facetious. and i didn't say he plagerized. i said his clerks wrote it.

I was being facetious. He wrote plenty of decisions before he had law clerks, and Congress got to see all of them. Even the ABA rated him as qualified for the court, despite the political pressure not to.

actually, the ABA said he was the least qualified of any justice ever confirmed.

and no. he never wrote a decision without law clerks.