Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope. It is more proper to refer to a justice as a justice. But lots of people revert to calling them ”judge” from time to time.The posts were clear. You just have that dis-ease f hearing what it is you think people are saying, as opposed to what they are actually saying. One only has to click back a few posts and it's all there.
Hey, we're funny! I guess that you have no sense of humor anymore.Which exposes you as chuckleheads.
Thanks for these links! I tried to read them all but the paywalled NY Times and The Atlantic articles stopped me. The analysis of Justice Thomas’s views as being partly based on an underlying cynicism about racism ever being eliminated — a kind of conservative “black nationalism” / black entrepreneurial capitalist ethos — is interesting and makes sense to me. The man is certainly complex … and bitter.DudleySmith You believe my comments to be amusing? I usually don't deal in caricatures when in a serious discussion:
Deconstructing Clarence Thomas
The justice’s reactionary legal philosophy rests on faith in the power of adversity to fuel black progress.www.theatlantic.com
Do you know any of this, or are you totally focused on the personal attacks? I understand the ethical issues now raised, but I suspect your views of exactly who and what Justice Thomas is, is warped.
Ask the author: Making the invisible justice visible – “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” - SCOTUSblog
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Corey Robin in connection with Robin’s new book, “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” (Metropolitan Books, 2019). Corey Robin is a professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He is the author of “Thewww.scotusblog.com
‘The Enigma of Clarence Thomas’ Makes a Strong Case for Its Provocative Thesis (Published 2019)
In his new book, Corey Robin argues that the black nationalism underpinning Thomas’s jurisprudence is a “secret hiding in plain sight.”www.nytimes.com
The Enigma of Clarence Thomas by Corey Robin review â a superb study
An original assessment of a controversial figure – Donald Trump’s favourite judge – who believes only money can free black Americawww.theguardian.com
Hon. Robert S. Smith: https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/ecm_pro_064794.pdf
Two Years After the Anita Hill Hearings, Clarence Thomas Strikes Back
From 1993: The Supreme Court Justice is still fuming about his tumultuous confirmation. In an unprecedented step, he is going public with his grievances—and lashing out in his votes.www.newyorker.com
The EndNot true.
'Bigly' triggered you and now innocently correcting you referring to Supreme Court Justices as Judge?Nope. It is more proper to refer to a justice as a justice. But lots of people revert to calling them ”judge” from time to time.
It’s amusing to watch your quibbling. It’s a tell. I hope you don’t play poker.
Thanks for these links! I tried to read them all but the paywalled NY Times and The Atlantic articles stopped me. The analysis of Justice Thomas’s views as being partly based on an underlying cynicism about racism ever being eliminated — a kind of conservative “black nationalism” / black entrepreneurial capitalist ethos — is interesting and makes sense to me. The man is certainly complex … and bitter.
I think Justice Thomas may be an enigma to the U.S. public as a jurist, and yet have his own personal “ideology” and grounds for cynicism, but at another level he seems just another corruptible conservative hypocrite. The criticism he bore during his nomination may have effected him like Obama’s and the Establishment’s early ridicule of Trump effected him. Justice Thomas, however, is probably far more interesting and educated than, e.g., our aggrieved, bitter, and far more ignorant ex-President Donald Trump.
Finding what true? That you folks are little more than whiners? Fair enough, there have certainly been enough rulings to support that.Courts are finding it true.
Absolutely! I didn’t mean to imply anything else.I believe the case of Senator Menedez would refute the idea that corruptibility is a flaw conservatives have an exclusive hold on.
You’re not funny. The fact that you see yourself as funny proves that you have no sense of humor.Hey, we're funny! I guess that you have no sense of humor anymore.
No chance 6-3 rulings usually follow ideology?We shall see how this all turns out, but people who believe the Court has a political side, usually end up wrong.
Senseless blatherisms are your forté.You’re not funny. The fact that you see yourself as funny proves that you have no sense of humor.
Your efforts to quibble are amusing. Off topic, as is so often the case with you, but amusing.The End
The title "Judge" is not used for Supreme Court Justices.
Supreme Court Procedures
Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...www.uscourts.gov
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
You wouldn’t know. That would require any semblance of “sense” on your part. So, you struck out. In life!Senseless blatherisms are your forté.
Bigly didn’t trigger me. I merely highlighted how slavishly devoted to your mistake you are. And your petulance me confirms it.'Bigly' triggered you and now innocently correcting you referring to Supreme Court Justices as Judge?
Quiet time for you
Good God, you're dense.Big Big Yuge Bigly News: Trump and His Lawyers Appeals Keep Falling on Deaf Ears @ the SCOTUS. Did Eastman try flattering Justice Thomas, mistakenly believing that all the Biggies in Power are susceptible to flattery? I believe there is some truth to that argument, as Eastman got close to Trump through flattery.
Life is just to die. There are no home run hitters.You wouldn’t know. That would require any semblance of “sense” on your part. So, you struck out. In life!
If I cared about you sufficiently, I’d pity you.Life is just to die. There are no home run hitters.
Eastman served as a law clerk for Thomas.......................DUH.Bad look for a Justice to have to recluse himself in a case con-cerning.................*checks notes................sedition.
Do what you like. Pity, no pity, is all the same to me.If I cared about you sufficiently, I’d pity you.
At Thomas' confirmation hearing, he stated he had not formulated his position on Roe v Wade. After that, Democrats do what they always do to anyone questioning abortion. They tore him down in the press and accused him of making 'unwelcome sexual comments.' They found a lackey (Anita Hill) to bring charges of 'sexual harassment) against him. She did this after Thomas promoted another woman over her. Joe Biden was pressured to re open the hearing as a result. Yeah Biden was fucking the country even then and showing how much of a racist he really is.Because you say so? That means nothing at all. You snowflakes just get more pathetic by the day with your ceaseless whining about anyone who doesn't parrot your worldview.
