Thomas 2012?

[Renae]

The end of the Supreme Court term later this month marks a milestone: four years in which Justice Clarence Thomas hasn't spoken during oral arguments. That's more than 250 cases heard, and not one word from Thomas, the longest silence of his nearly 19 years on the bench.

Is he unhappy? Bored? Restless?

This is not his normal state. When the justice from Georgia steps out of his black robes, he's a gregarious fellow. When addressing law students, bar associations or Congress, he is charismatic and compelling. At a speech at the University of Florida this year, he cracked self-deprecating jokes and made football references. "Many of you are passionate about your Florida Gators, but how passionate are we about the principles that underlie our country?" he asked. Unfortunately, his people skills are wasted in the stuffy, stilted, stylized interactions between lawyers and Supreme Court justices.

washingtonpost.com

A good read. Justice Thomas certainly has the brains, charisma and attitude for the job, but would he WANT it?

 

[RightinNYC]

The authors of that article are gossip columnists, so take their analysis with a grain of salt.

I can't imagine why Thomas would want to give up his seat so that he could run for an office that he would absolutely hate. All the things that Thomas supposedly dislikes about being a judge are even more prevalent in politics - constant press conferences, political-speak, and a total absence of firm principles.

 

[Renae]

The authors of that article are gossip columnists, so take their analysis with a grain of salt.

I can't imagine why Thomas would want to give up his seat so that he could run for an office that he would absolutely hate. All the things that Thomas supposedly dislikes about being a judge are even more prevalent in politics - constant press conferences, political-speak, and a total absence of firm principles.

I was enjoying the thought exercise Right.

 

[rathi]

Supreme court justices get to vote their true and honest beliefs without regard for what public opinion, campaign backers, or even the person who gave them their seat thinks. Being a politician means you compromise on everything and become a complete whore for all your backers. It would be a horrible transition.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Thomas would have to give up his seat while Barack Obama is in charge. That would basically ensure that the Supreme Court would shift to the left for the foreseeable future. I don't see Thomas doing that (or even wanting to be president when he's got a post already that is almost as powerful only with less ability for people to pressure his decisions).

 

[disneydude]

Brains and charisma are not the first two things that come to mind when thinking about Clarence Thomas. The man is unqualified to sit on the bench and any thought of him as President is laughable.

 

[RightinNYC]

Brains and charisma are not the first two things that come to mind when thinking about Clarence Thomas.

That's because most people don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a shred of doubt in my mind that Thomas is more intelligent than all but maybe a handful of people here.

The man is unqualified to sit on the bench

And you're basing this on...?

 

[TOJ]

That's because most people don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a shred of doubt in my mind that Thomas is more intelligent than all but maybe a handful of people here.



And you're basing this on...?

He's black. Don't you know no black person with Thomas's views could possibly be quilified to sit on the SC? I'm sure DD can explain it to you. :roll:

.

 

[Renae]

That's because most people don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a shred of doubt in my mind that Thomas is more intelligent than all but maybe a handful of people here.



And you're basing this on...?

He's Black, and Conservative. That shows he's an idiot... in the minds of certain folk.

 

[Goshin]

I think his position on SCOTUS is far more important than having him run for Prez...

But if he DID decide to run for Prez, he would have my vote! I think he's totally awesome.

 

[disneydude]

That's because most people don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a shred of doubt in my mind that Thomas is more intelligent than all but maybe a handful of people here.



And you're basing this on...?

The man hasn't authored a major decision since sitting on the court. Anyone who follows the SCOTUS knows that Thomas generally sits and doesn't participate much at all in the conversations and almost always votes with Scalia.

The man is a joke and an embarassment to the Supreme Court.

 

[Renae]

The man hasn't authored a major decision since sitting on the court. Anyone who follows the SCOTUS knows that Thomas generally sits and doesn't participate much at all in the conversations and almost always votes with Scalia.

The man is a joke and an embarassment to the Supreme Court.

Ahhh yes, the bumper sticker level of retort. Why is it that he rarely writes dd?

GM: But if Thomas believes in "right and wrong answers," you'd think he'd have to re-evaluate whether his philosophy was "right," given the number of times the other eight justices align against him. I feel like Thomas must hold a record for lone dissents.

MF: He is certainly up there when it comes to lone dissenters. Some of Justice Thomas's former clerks say that he sees himself as a purist when it comes to the law and that he believes he has courage of conviction. So he views standing alone as a sign of being principled. One of Thomas's favorite justices is Justice Harlan, the former slaveholder who was the one justice to vote against the court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the concept of "separate but equal" for more than half a century. Harlan stood alone in 1896 and he was not fully vindicated until the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. Thomas sees his example as a courageous one.

Gelf Magazine Trying to Understand Clarence Thomas


As for not participating, as you so claim...

Thomas is well known for his reticence during the Court's oral arguments. In 2009, the New York Times noted that he had not asked a question from the bench in over three years.[156] Thomas gave some reasons during a question-and-answer session with high school students in 2000:
I have some very active colleagues who like to ask questions. Usually, if you wait long enough, someone will ask your question. The other thing, I was on that other side of the podium before, in my earlier life, and it's hard to stand up by yourself and to have judges who are going to rule on your case ask you tough questions. I don't want to give them a hard time.
In November 2007, Thomas said to an audience at Hillsdale College in Michigan: "My colleagues should shut up!" He later explained, "I don't think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary."[157] Thomas is not the first quiet justice—in the 1970s and 1980s, justices such as William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun were likewise generally quiet.[158][159] However, Thomas's silence stood out on the Court of the 1990s, on which the other eight justices engaged in active questioning during oral arguments.[159] Thomas's speaking and listening habits may have also been influenced by his Gullah upbringing, during which time his English language skills were relatively unpolished, although the other factors mentioned by Thomas could explain his silence on the bench.[6][12][160]

Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But hey, don't let your short, jaded lies get in the way of facts... IF you want to be "that guy" calling Clarance Thomas a joke, go for it dude.

 

[RightinNYC]

The man hasn't authored a major decision since sitting on the court.

Anyone who follows the SCOTUS knows that Thomas generally sits and doesn't participate much at all in the conversations and almost always votes with Scalia.

The man is a joke and an embarassment to the Supreme Court.

I feel like we've had this discussion before...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-court-rules-strip-search-teen-illegal-2.html

Easily....except that's just it....Thomas doesn't really reason. Hasn't really written any major opinion since he's been on the court. Usually just concurs with Scalia.

This is a relatively common misconception among those who haven't bothered to educate themselves about the Justices. I hope this clears things up for you:

Clarence Thomas has borne some of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate role on the court are equally offensive--and demonstrably false. An extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years.

That's not the standard storyline. Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

...

Consider a criminal case argued during Justice Thomas's first week. It concerned a thief's effort to get out of a Louisiana mental institution and the state's desire to keep him there. Eight justices voted to side with the thief. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that although it "may make eminent sense as a policy matter" to let the criminal out of the mental institution, nothing in the Constitution required "the states to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."

After he sent his dissenting opinion to the other justices, as is custom, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy changed their votes. The case ended up 5-4.

...

But the forcefulness and clarity of Justice Thomas's views, coupled with wrongheaded depictions of him doing Justice Scalia's bidding, created an internal dynamic that caused the court to make an unexpected turn in his first year. Justice O'Connor--who sought ideological balance--moved to the left. With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the court now is poised to finally fulfill the hopes of the conservative movement. As George W. Bush told his legal advisers early in his presidency, he wanted justices in "the mold of Thomas and Scalia." Interestingly, on President Bush's marquee, Justice Thomas got top billing.

It's a shame that so many love to smear Justice Thomas despite knowing nothing about his jurisprudence or role on the court.

So....he casts a dissenting vote away from Scalia occassionally....so what?

The man hasn't authored a single opinion of significance in the decades that he has been on the court. He is well known for not engaging in questioning during hearings, despite the fact that he may have done so on a couple of ocassions.

I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.

So....he casts a dissenting vote away from Scalia occassionally....so what?

So your claim that he blindly follows Scalia is essentially ****. He doesn't vote with Scalia (or, more accurately, Scalia doesn't vote with him) any more than Alito votes with Roberts or Stevens votes with Breyer.

The man hasn't authored a single opinion of significance in the decades that he has been on the court.

Just off the top of my head:

GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZO.html

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

And that's only of his opinions. He's at his best when he's concurring or dissenting to make a point.

I'm sure that if I bothered to go through this list, I'd find plenty more:

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas

He is well known for not engaging in questioning during hearings, despite the fact that he may have done so on a couple of ocassions.

What does this have to do with anything? Please don't tell me that you view one's level of interaction at oral arguments as indicative of anything beyond the desire to hear oneself speak.

I work in the legal profession....I read Supreme Court opinions daily......so your criticism that somehow I haven't studied Thomas and know what I am talking about is unfounded.

Then why is it that you can't offer a remotely cogent criticism of him, and instead resort to the overplayed and completely uninformed "he just follows scalia, he doesn't talk, he's dumb, etc."?

(silence)

 

[RightinNYC]

Disney, you seem to have missed this thread. You're around now, so I'll just bump it for you.

 

[Navy Pride]

I love the way a black conservatives torques the jaws of our liberal friends like DD.......Its really makes me laugh.....Its almost as funny as a Conservative woman with moral values like Governor palin gets under their skin........I love it.............

 

[Barbbtx]

I love the way a black conservatives torques the jaws of our liberal friends like DD.......Its really makes me laugh.....Its almost as funny as a Conservative woman with moral values like Governor palin gets under their skin........I love it.............

I love it too. It would be so entertaining to have a black conservative running in 2012. Not Clarence though. We need him on the SC. Maybe Herman Cain. I understand he is considering it. Maybe he could find a black conservative woman to run as his VP. Oh, dear God, please let me live long enough to see something like that.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Would Obama nominate a replacement for Thomas or would Thomas nominate his own replacement? If Obama nominates a replacement for Thomas I do not want Thomas to run. We cannot afford another Obama justice.

 

[Winston Smith]

Brains and charisma are not the first two things that come to mind when thinking about Clarence Thomas. The man is unqualified to sit on the bench and any thought of him as President is laughable.

That's because most people don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a shred of doubt in my mind that Thomas is more intelligent than all but maybe a handful of people here.

I agree with both of these posts to some extent. Everyone on the Supreme Court is extremely intelligent, but in my opinion Thomas is the least among a very elite group. I don't know of any other justice who's ridiculed for getting the law flat-ass wrong as much as Thomas is.

I think he might do better in a political office. His deference to police power is well known, so I'd actually welcome the chance to get him out of the judiciary and into an executive role. His philosophy seems more suited to that branch of government.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I love the way a black conservatives torques the jaws of our liberal friends like DD.......Its really makes me laugh.....Its almost as funny as a Conservative woman with moral values like Governor palin gets under their skin........I love it.............

Why is it that conservatives bring up Thomas' race at every turn?

 

[danarhea]

washingtonpost.com

A good read. Justice Thomas certainly has the brains, charisma and attitude for the job, but would he WANT it?

Thomas should stay on the bench, that is, unless he wants to let Obama change the makeup of SCOTUS for the next generation.

 

[danarhea]

washingtonpost.com

A good read. Justice Thomas certainly has the brains, charisma and attitude for the job, but would he WANT it?

Thomas should stay on the bench, that is, unless he wants to let Obama change the makeup of SCOTUS for the next generation.

 

[RightinNYC]

I agree with both of these posts to some extent. Everyone on the Supreme Court is extremely intelligent, but in my opinion Thomas is the least among a very elite group. I don't know of any other justice who's ridiculed for getting the law flat-ass wrong as much as Thomas is.

I think he might do better in a political office. His deference to police power is well known, so I'd actually welcome the chance to get him out of the judiciary and into an executive role. His philosophy seems more suited to that branch of government.

I know this is several weeks old, but where exactly did Thomas get the law "flat-ass wrong"? I'm unaware of only one time in recent memory that ANY Justice got anything actually wrong in an opinion, and it was a Kennedy opinion dealing with the frequency of capital punishment in the military.

 

[Renae]

I know this is several weeks old, but where exactly did Thomas get the law "flat-ass wrong"? I'm unaware of only one time in recent memory that ANY Justice got anything actually wrong in an opinion, and it was a Kennedy opinion dealing with the frequency of capital punishment in the military.

He hasn't, but some... news sources and media sites claim he does regularly.

 

[Winston Smith]

I know this is several weeks old, but where exactly did Thomas get the law "flat-ass wrong"? I'm unaware of only one time in recent memory that ANY Justice got anything actually wrong in an opinion, and it was a Kennedy opinion dealing with the frequency of capital punishment in the military.

I know of one time when he misstated the requirements for injunctive relief, though it didn't make a difference in that case. Another was a criminal procedure case where he read the law in a way that was logically impossible. I can't be any more specific, unfortunately. I read them a long time ago.