He might want to pick up a history book every once in a while.
Even his own decision in the Bush v. Gore case "second guesses" judges.
You are not making sense. When reviewing a lower court case for a Constitutional-level violation in the voir dire (jury selection) process, the reviewing judges or justices take many factors into account and weigh them. That you and I might agree with the majority in that particular case (and thus disagree with Justice Thomas) establishes exactly NOTHING about the matter under discussion. It doesn't address your out-of-the-blue commentary about reading a "history book" (which has nothing to do with the judicial review of the lower court's determination). And it doesn't inform anybody about the proposition that Justice Thomas doesn't care to read the briefs and papers. If anything, the fact that he was invoking a legal doctrine of deference toward the determinations of a lower court kind of establishes that he had read the material.
He came to a different conclusion. He might not have been "right" in our view on that call. But that is completely beside the point of the discussion about HOW he goes about his job.
Bottom line? You have failed to support your claim.
No I didn't. His decision here falls under the mantra of "Judicial Activism". It's more political then one of case law. But even under this scope other decisions he's made has expressed that he's not as pure with that ideology as he purports. Heller and Citizen's United being most germane to that argument.
Yes. You did.
His decision does not fall anywhere NEAR the concept of "Judicial Activism."
You don't seem to grasp what judicial activism is.
The principle he endorsed in the case you referenced was that APPELLATE JUDGES are distant. They are REMOVED from the actual business going on in the trial level court. APPELLATE judges (for example) do not get to view the facial expressions and body language of prospective jurors (and witnesses for that matter). So for an appellate judge to REFRAIN from cavalierly assuming that a trial level judge was "wrong" in accepting the "excuse" offered by a litigating attorney at such a trial is an example of the kind of deference appellate judges are supposed to remember they are obliged to show.
That particular case? Yeah. I think the resort to such "deference" went too far. But my disagreement (and yours) does NOT have a single thing to do with 'activism" by the higher court.
Your fail on this one remains intact.
Last edited: