Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

[Uncensored2008]

Stating the fact that these judges are above the law by default doesn't change the facts liar.

What have I lied about, racist?

Be specific, provide cites.


You seek to smear Thomas because he is off the plantation.

Sen. Harry Reid Avoids Answering Tough Questions About Personal Financial Disclosures; -- LAS VEGAS, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/nyregion/05rangel.html

Barney Frank

Shall I continue?

 

[Dot Com]

You're a racist scumbag - nothing moderate at all about you.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us​

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think he is a RW hack.....I look at Thomas as a puppet of Scalia

Honestly, don't you look at him as a runaway who needs to be punished?

No, but I look at you as a renegade from another message board trying to impress others.

Carry on

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So you are going to ignore what she posted and judge her on something what you imagine .It isnt racism to hold a different opinion.
Remind me to stay on the friendly side of your delusions.

I'm not ignoring what she posts, I'm basing this on what she posts.

She claims Thomas is stupid, has she offered any evidence to support this, or is it pure demagoguery?

We both know full well it is the latter. So WHY the attacks on Thomas? She doesn't levy the same level of vitriol and dishonesty at Scalia or Roberts, though they are more conservative than Thomas. So her attacks MUST be something more than the general partisan hatred that leftists have.

The Left’s Common Cause: “Lynch Clarence Thomas!” | RedState

Her opinion , one I disagree with is, it is a sign of stupidity to sit and listen with out a query .
That is her stated objection and proof .

I disagree , if other questions are asked by ideological and intellectual equals are sufficiently illuminating it is unnecessary to re-ask ,that would be a sign of stupidity .

That she doesn't lay waste to other justices proves she is open minded and perhaps not a" hack".
I recommend a retraction and agree to disagree.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[]

Vacuous as always, Scheiß Maus.

I suspect that if you ever posted anything of substance, Earth would spin out of orbit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, but I look at you as a renegade from another message board trying to impress others.

Carry on

Renegade?

Is English your second language?

 

[rightwinger]

No, but I look at you as a renegade from another message board trying to impress others.

Carry on

Renegade?

Is English your second language?

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

Seen your type before....you won't last long

 

[Uncensored2008]

Her opinion , one I disagree with is, it is a sign of stupidity to sit and listen with out a query .
That is her stated objection and proof .

Again, I view her statement of such as to be simple racism. A cynical attack on Thomas for not kowtowing to her shameful party.

That she doesn't lay waste to other justices proves she is open minded and perhaps not a" hack".
I recommend a retraction and agree to disagree.

I think it shows that she is a racist. She holds Thomas to special contempt for being a "race traitor" by not obeying the left.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In spite of what she said.
You should think about that and put the shoe on the other foot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

ROFL

I'm smart, highly educated and quick witted. I am the bane of the left.

Seen your type before....you won't last long

Really? What will happen to me?

 

[Dot Com]

No, but I look at you as a renegade from another message board trying to impress others.

Carry on

Renegade?

Is English your second language?

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

Seen your type before....you won't last long

He is on a continual flaming spree.

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

ROFL

I'm smart, highly educated and quick witted. I am the bane of the left.

Seen your type before....you won't last long

Really? What will happen to me?

You are the bane of the rational.

As to the OP, Thomas appears to be Scalia's bot as he invariably votes the same way AFTER seeing which way Nino votes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He is on a continual flaming spree.

Irony indeed, Scheiß Maus.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Justice Thomas has repeatedly said he thinks questions from the bench should be unnecessary, and are given the way the court operatates (An attorney only has a set amount of time for arguments)rude and self aggrandizing. If you can't make your argument in your brief or your statement, argument from the bench won't help. And given the time limits, will cause huge harm to a litigant's case.
His position on this has been clear forever.
As far as Thomas is concerned, his silence is good manners.

That is an excuse for being incapable of asking a question. There is no "good manners" about it when process dictates a different means of handling an issue.

A litigant has 30 minutes, and any time the judges use in asking questions comes out of the litigant's time. Thomas hated it when judges wasted his time this way when he was a litigant.
If you are practicing before the US Supreme court in a case that has certiori, it can be assumed that you are hot stuff who is prepared, and has prepared all your arguments ahead of time. In your written materials, you have also answered any objections.

There are also 8 other justices who are also there to ask questions. You can assume any reasonable, and given the vanity of these guys quite a few unreasonable questions will be asked.

Thomas just hates the practice of interrupting lawyers during their presentation. The lawyers he is daling with are not wet behind the ears graduates of a cow college with a barely passing grade on the bar exam. These are supposedly the scum of the legal profession floating on the very top of the US Bar. They had to supply huge amounts of paper along with the filing explaining their position. Any questions the justices should have should be in that filing.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm going to bet, dim bulb, that if I look at your posts, I'm going to find out you're racist trash.

We've already established that you are.

So go for it, find racists posts from me.

But no one criticizes Thomas b/c he's black.

Bull-fucking-shit.

You attack, not criticize. You attack because he is a black man who DARES to defy the democratic party. You can deny all you like, but it is rank racism. Sure you hate Roberts as you hate all who are not party members, but NEVER will you launch the kind of filth at him that you do Thomas, because in your mind Thomas is a defiler, one who has defied his role as a a loyal minion of the party - as ALL blacks are expected to be.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, J is a blind political hack but she isnt a racist .

So what does that say about uncensoredmoron's judgement?

 

[Synthaholic]

Doesn't he just follow whatever Nino does? He is prolly close to 100% in voting w/ Nino. I could pick someone walking out of a Quik E Mart who could do the same. How much is he paid for this?

He lives like a multi-millionaire, on other people's money.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Id say he has chosen the wrong hill to die on, intransient like that should be reserved for fact based argument not pissing contests over personal opinion.

 

[Synthaholic]

No liar.

What do you allege I lied about, be specific and cite it?

I stated the fact that he's a RW hack, intended to legislate the RW agenda from the Bench.

That isn't a "fact" but rather the recitation of leftwing hate site talking points.

EDIT:

My mistake, it was Jillian claiming Thomas is stupid.

That's 2 posts in a row where you avoided Marc's question about the payola, dope.

Answer the fucking question.

 

[Synthaholic]

Stating the fact that these judges are above the law by default doesn't change the facts liar.

What have I lied about, racist?

Be specific, provide cites.


You seek to smear Thomas because he is off the plantation.

Sen. Harry Reid Avoids Answering Tough Questions About Personal Financial Disclosures; -- LAS VEGAS, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/nyregion/05rangel.html

Barney Frank

Shall I continue?

Reid, Rangel, and Frank are elected officials who can be voted out of office. Thomas is supposed to be completely unbiased and impartial and has a lifetime appointment.

You're a stupid little shit, aren't you?

 

[Synthaholic]

Renegade?

Is English your second language?

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

Seen your type before....you won't last long

He is on a continual flaming spree.

ROFL

I'm smart, highly educated and quick witted. I am the bane of the left.

Seen your type before....you won't last long

Really? What will happen to me?

You are the bane of the rational.

As to the OP, Thomas appears to be Scalia's bot as he invariably votes the same way AFTER seeing which way Nino votes.

Has he ever voted counter to Scalia?

 

[goldcatt]

Justice Thomas has repeatedly said he thinks questions from the bench should be unnecessary, and are given the way the court operatates (An attorney only has a set amount of time for arguments)rude and self aggrandizing. If you can't make your argument in your brief or your statement, argument from the bench won't help. And given the time limits, will cause huge harm to a litigant's case.
His position on this has been clear forever.
As far as Thomas is concerned, his silence is good manners.

That is an excuse for being incapable of asking a question. There is no "good manners" about it when process dictates a different means of handling an issue.

A litigant has 30 minutes, and any time the judges use in asking questions comes out of the litigant's time. Thomas hated it when judges wasted his time this way when he was a litigant.
If you are practicing before the US Supreme court in a case that has certiori, it can be assumed that you are hot stuff who is prepared, and has prepared all your arguments ahead of time. In your written materials, you have also answered any objections.

There are also 8 other justices who are also there to ask questions. You can assume any reasonable, and given the vanity of these guys quite a few unreasonable questions will be asked.

Thomas just hates the practice of interrupting lawyers during their presentation. The lawyers he is daling with are not wet behind the ears graduates of a cow college with a barely passing grade on the bar exam. These are supposedly the scum of the legal profession floating on the very top of the US Bar. They had to supply huge amounts of paper along with the filing explaining their position. Any questions the justices should have should be in that filing.

The problem is, if all the attorneys are supposed to be doing is making a presentation based on their pleadings there really would be no need for the orals. A few egos can't stand to be interrupted and just want the stage to themselves, but most attorneys who actually care about doing the best job for their clients rather than aggrandizing themselves want a hot bench and all of the Justices involved.

It gives them insight into what the Justices are thinking. It allows them to answer questions about points both on and off brief, if that's the way the Justices are taking it. There is nothing worse than having a cold bench at orals and being surprised by a decision based on arguments that have nothing to do with the filed documents.

The biggest problem I have, is that last has happened on several occasions specifically when Thomas signed the opinions. If he wasn't looking at the briefs and filings and wanted to base a decision it on other grounds, by NOT asking he gave the parties no chance to argue their positions on the deciding issues at all.

To me, that's almost unconscionable. The process exists for a reason, so the parties have the chance to be heard and respond to the Court's questions and concerns. IMO any Justice who sits there out of "courtesy" just doesn't get it.