home

In Defense of Clarence Thomas

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Judiciary
Posted on Sat May 19, 2007 at 07:27:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This unsurprising news about Justice Clarence Thomas' silence in oral arguments has inspired some negative comments:

Justice Clarence Thomas sat through 68 hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's current term without uttering a word. In nearly 16 years on the court, Thomas typically has asked questions a couple of times a term.

This is much ado about nothing. Yes Thomas is particularly quiet in oral arguments but, given a nine member Court, this seems rather unremarkable to me. My problems with Thomas have nothing to do with this.

It is when he writes and votes that my objections emerge.

< Weekend Open Thread | Heh >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In Defense of Clarence Thomas | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    thomas (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by orionATL on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    281 word in 2+ years doesn't bother you?

    it bothers me

    at lot!

    i think a supreme judge ought to express her/his views in oral argument so the "public" can get a sense of the personality and the mind.

    thomas is hiding behind silence: there is no other way to look at tit.

    i think thomas is the most incompetent supreme court judge i have seen in my lifetime. he is just another george w. bush: way over his head in a job vital to the nation; and given to hiding his incompetence.

    all the p.r. about him in the last two/three years hasn't impressed me.

    my suspicion is that he either doesn't have the training, or doesn't have the intellect, or both

    required of a supreme court justice.

    but i may be mistaken here,

    because my sense of thomas' personality is he has a huge reservoir of resentment inside him.

    he may be expressing that resentment in contrarianism.

    in any  event, whatever his grandfather passed on to him, it was not helpful to this nation.

    orionATL (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    i think a supreme judge ought to express her/his views in oral argument so the "public" can get a sense of the personality and the mind
    .

    Why? A SCJ is appointed for life. The rulings will tell you all.

    in any  event, whatever his grandfather passed on to him, it was not helpful to this nation.

    Without commenting on "whatever" is meant by you, do  you think that we are responsible for the actions of our ancestors? Or that we get to pick our parents?

    Attacking a person because of something his ancestors did, or was lacking in, is ugly and leads direcly to some ugly words I will leave unsaid.

    Parent

    The Crazy Thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    For me is BTD's headline. BTD defends Clarence Thomas.... Ironic to be sure that his defense is over something totally trite.

    I agree with BTD that not talking means little. If Thomas were writing good decisions and not talking and who here would care. Maybe ppj.

    The problem is that Thomas is a jerk and bad for America and Scallia has a big enough mouth for both of them. The fact that Thomas doesn't talk is good: less poison is expelled into the air. I do not need to hear his rhetoric.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    I agree with BTD that not talking means little. If Thomas were writing good decisions and not talking and who here would care. Maybe ppj.

    Why pick a fight? Why smear someone who hasn't said a word? Why? Becuase this says it all:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    PPJ the Smear king (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    Sorry ppj you are the one here that emulates Rove and his smear machine, along with your other favorite neocons.

    Do they also believe in shooting looters and heads of state?

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
     Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.


    Parent
    Squeaky's tactics (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    I note again that you just had to act like a middle grade schooler, perhaps you are, perhaps not, and make a personal attack at 8:53 on 5/19. (Above) Since I had not even commented on Thomas, or any subject on this thread I think it shows that your intent is to smear, and not debate.

    You have claimed that I take your "smear machine" comment out of context. Well, here is some context:

    Link to my comment at 2:54 on 5/14.

    Pretty plain, eh. My position was simple. It's okay to shoot looters in a disaster zone, especially if they are shooting at First Responders. If that "kills'em," then "Sorry about that.

    I wonder why Squeaky couldn't provide the context quotes....You think he is being dishonest? Would mistate things?? Wellllllll, he did write:

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written and Squeaky quotes)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (Squeaky replies)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    I think that demonstrates the level of accuracy you bring to the table, as well as your willingness to not let facts stand in the way of attacking someone you are in disagreement with.

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    Once again it is the ppj show. Divert and distract, just like a good Republican troll.

    Wouldn't want your boy Thomas to get too much heat, would you?

    Parent

    Squeaky whines (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:01:27 AM EST
    Divert and distract?

    You are the one who brought me into the conversation. I had not written a single word.

    And now you want to whimper.

    Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

    Parent

    A dog? (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

    I have never called you a dog as that woud be an insult to all the dogs I know, but it is true that you do lie, with great regularity. Facts are not your friends unless they are false.  At least most, if not all of the time you are called on your spin here at TL.


    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    You start a fight by smearing:

    I agree with BTD that not talking means little. If Thomas were writing good decisions and not talking and who here would care. Maybe ppj.

    And when called on it you make another false claim.

    And when called on that and when it is demonstrated what your standards are, you whine.

    And when I give you some good advice about letting things alone, you blather about "lies" and throw in another insult.

    Squeaky. It is your own words that betray you, and you can't hide from them.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    As we see here day in and day out, you argue against the constitution and for the Scalias and Thomas' and Roberts in our government.  You are for designating innocents enemy combatants by mere presidential decree, against due process, for eternal detention without charges, and for the ever expanding executive branch where Bush's powers are just like a King.

    And yes shooting looters is part of the package.

    Now had RB Ginsburg been accused of not talking you would be screaming for her impeachment as an incompetant.

    Not a smear ppj, just calling a Republican Operative a Republican Operative aka ppj.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    Now had RB Ginsburg been accused of not talking you would be screaming for her impeachment as an incompetant.

    How do you know that? You don't and you offer no proof beyond the nasty attacks you have shown against those who disagree with you, and your blatant statements that you won't let facts stand in your way.

    And yes, I stand behind this statement. Try quoting it and you will, at least once, be factual:

    Pretty plain, eh. My position was simple. It's okay to shoot looters in a disaster zone, especially if they are shooting at First Responders. If that "kills'em," then "Sorry about that.

    I wonder why Squeaky couldn't provide the context quotes....You think he is being dishonest? Would mistate things?? Wellllllll, he did write:

    I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Your own words haunt you and follow you.

    Parent

    GOP Parrot (4.00 / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    And shill. Repeat, rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

    Too bad no one is buying your swill.


    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:54:50 PM EST
    The problem you have is that you are fighting your own words.

    Life's a beach and then you dye... ;-)

    Parent

    No ppj (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:02:39 PM EST
    They are your words. Your twist not mine. Your context not mine. You are only fighting your own shadow in a pathetic attempt to emulate Rove, your hero.

    Parent
    squeaky (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:03:38 PM EST
    My words??

    Good heavens.

    Now you deny the links.

    You know, I almost feel sorry for you. But I grew up among people like you. I understood the insult implicit in "boy" while you were in diapers. I knew the economics behind the company store while you were a dream in your father's heart.

    I was lied to by experts, co-opted by poppinjays who thought I didn't understand, carried the water for people who would leave me to my fate at the first hint of the storm....

    And you think I am a conservative, a Repub?

    I am my own man, Squeaky... Perhaps someday you will also be.

    But you'd better learn to quit suckling at the teat of the Left. You'd better start learning how the game is really played or you will face the end of it terrified that some politican won't fund your food allowance...

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    Poor baby, ppj.  Sounds like you have had a really hard life. Doesn't seem like you have learned much from it though. Better  luck next time round.

    Parent
    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:25:11 PM EST
    Yes. So hard that I do what I want to do, when I want to.

    Freedom is the only wealth.

    Parent

    Assuming the purpose of the headline (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    is to entice the reader to read further, this if a spot on headline.

    Parent
    Even without (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    clicking on the link it is hilarious. And yes, spot on.

    Parent
    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by chemoelectric on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:07:36 PM EST
    Yeah, Thomas is one of those people who the less heard from the better.

    Put it this way- (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    He said more to Anita Hill about porn and coke cans than he's said from the bench........

    In Defense of Clarence Thomas (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BerkeleyMom on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    In November of 2005 I think it was, I was at the Supreme Court when a case was being argued about police entry to a home. Did both persons at home have to agree to let in the cops or just one of the two? The problem I had with Thomas was that he was talking all the time--in the ear of Justice Breyer who sat next to him (don't know what the seating arrangement is now that the two new justices are there). Either Thomas was leaning back in his chair with his eyes shut or he was distracting Breyer. I thought it was very disrepectful to the lawyers in front of the court.
       There was a slight gasp in the courtroom when Thomas actually asked a question and he should have kept his mouth shut because I thought it was a really bad question/comment. In this case, there were drugs in the house--the estranged wife wanted to rat out the husband with the drugs to get him arrested. Thomas asked-- did it really matter whether the wife brought the drugs out of the house to show the police or if the police just went in and found them? The cops had the drugs--what difference did it make??
       Maybe that's why he doesn't talk much. He has made up his mind and has no questions to ask.

    Wrong Judge. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Saul on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:55:41 AM EST
    In my opinion Thomas should have never been confirmed.  I remember seeing the Anita hearings.   To me Anita was a very credable witness.  If those same hearings were heard today, taking in consideration the advancement of women in politics today,  I can almost gurantee you  that Thomas would have withdrawn his name for nomination.  

    Of course, the really galling thing... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun May 20, 2007 at 02:22:02 AM EST
    Is that this clown replaced Thurgood Marshall. That was the very special way Poppy Bush stuck the knife into the legacy of the civil rights movement, and twisted it.

    I clerked for a federal judge (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by redfish on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:13:11 AM EST
    Some judges are quieter than others, some never spoke in conference and some never shut up.

    A lot of the questioning is trying to show off your intellectual chops, some judges just aren't concerned with that.

    His failure to ask questions is pretty much meaningless, the cases are decided based on the law and every judge will decide that for him/herself with help of clerks.  Briefs are 10x more important than oral arguments.

    The USSC doesn't hear evidence, the oral arguments are a re-hash of the briefs.

    et al (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    I have no idea as to how smart Thomas is, and I would guess that neither do 90% of you who have commented in this post.

    He, like Judge Brown and SOS Rice is a black person who didn't toe the Demo line.

    And this a sin that no one is ever forgiven for.

    Nonsequitur or what? (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    He, like Judge Brown and SOS Rice is a black person who didn't toe the Demo line.

    What does being black have to do Thomas not asking questions.

     And what not toeing the line have to do with race?

    Please expound.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    And you can't understand that?

    Squeaky, you are not that dumb.

    Parent

    Please Elaborate (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    Or are you just whitewashing your racist comment above.

    Parent
    Cat Got Your Tongue? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    Emulating Thomas on this one?  Please elaborate on or explain your apparent racist remark.

    Parent
    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    He, like Judge Brown and SOS Rice is a black person who didn't toe the Demo line.

    And this a sin that no one is ever forgiven for.

    Noting that a black person is being attacked for not toeing the Demo line is not racist.

    You know, I know it, the world knows it.

    Care to keep on trying to smear?? I have the antidote ready to spread on the screen. Here is a small dose.

    Squeaky - Nice of you to decide to condemn people based on their ancestors. Have you checked your own? I say again. Condemning people based on things, if what you claim is true, that their ancestors did is despicable. It also totally illogical and an excellent way to keep blood feuds and ancient hatreds going. You make an excellent hillbilly of the Hatfield and McCoys variety.


    Parent
    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:18:04 PM EST
    BTW

    Noting that a black person is being attacked for not toeing the Demo line is not racist.

    Of course as the attacker you might need to exmine your own heart.

    And don't go postal. Just a thought after watching you go after Rove's German grandparents.

    Parent

    Patently Racist (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    Your accusation that Democrats are unhappy about Thomas and Rice for not being duly subservient is an old racist meme. You have taken ownership of it here.

    You brought it up. How come? The thread is in defense of Thomas' reticence. Nothing to do with Rice at all, and not a word about being dark skinned here as far as I can tell.

    Got something you need to talk about.

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:03:39 PM EST
    the thread is in defense of Thomas' reticence.

    With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    The problem is that Thomas is a jerk and bad for America and Scallia has a big enough mouth for both of them. The fact that Thomas doesn't talk is good: less poison is expelled into the air. I do not need to hear his rhetoric.

    Judge Brown had to wait two years for a up/down vote.. Just an oversight I am sure.

    Squeaky, as a sharecropper's son you can't put no "I'm for the.... (insert name) BS on me. I've seen politicans inside out lie like like troopers. You have heard about things. I've seen'em and lived'em.

    Have a nice day, phoney.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:31:49 PM EST
    You have made it clear that you like the wingnut Brown because she shares your ideology. The fact that you say you like her because she is a sharecropper's daughter is BS, nice personal touch though. She is an ideologue just like you and is not qualified to be a judge. Another one for the Chimperor.

    And what does Brown and Rice have to do with Thomas' reticence again, tell me Mr. Life Experience?

    Nothing. It is chance for you change the subject and make a racist slam about Blacks toeing a Democratic line.

    Glad to hear that you get out and have had real life experience. Funny that you imagine yourself as special that way, but not the least bit surprising.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    Ideology??

    Is that all of life to you?

    I doubt Judge Brown would have a cup of coffee with me.

    Long ago I said I wanted her there because of where she comes from. It may happen, it may not. But at least she has been exposed to the real world.

    That may count at some point. It may not.

    But that's better than the phoney stuff you swear to.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:56:34 PM EST
    Brown,

    Brown was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor, in this case Gov. Pete Wilson. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent...and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."

    link

    William H. Pryor Jr., appointed by Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. If Pryor is confirmed as predicted, he will join Brown and Priscilla R. Owen -- sworn in this week to the 5th Circuit -- as the trio of sharply contested nominees whose approval was the price that liberals paid to retain the right to filibuster future nominees, possibly including those to the Supreme Court.

    WaPo

    President Bush sidestepped the confirmation process and recess appointed William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit on February 20, 2004. Pryor's record reveals him to be an ultra-conservative legal activist whose record disqualifies him from a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. As Alabama Attorney General, Pryor has demonstrated a commitment to rolling back the clock on federal protections against discrimination based on race, gender, age, and disability. He has pushed his extremist agenda not only through litigation in which Alabama was a party, but also by electing to file amicus briefs in cases in which Alabama was not involved, and through numerous public speeches that make clear that the ideological positions he has taken in these cases are his own.

    link

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    The nuclear option begins this morning. Bill Frist has announced he will seek a vote on Priscilla Owne - an extremist whom Texans say wants to rewrite law from the bench. The Washington Post has this script for how it will play out.

    TL

    Parent

    Tis best to let sleeping dogs lie (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    Squeaky, your dishonesty is amazing. Now, feast your eyes on but a few examples of the racism contained in these attacks on two talented black women who chose to not be a Democrat.

    Link

    Have you heard of Oliphant?

    The attacks on Rice put you in good company.

    Ted  Kennedy on Judge Brown

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:01:03 PM EST
    Sleeping: for sure. Dog: no. Lie: most of the time.

    Two out of three. Not bad.

    Parent

    What an idiot you can be (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    sometimes.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    Nice smear. Do you want me to Google up some examples??

    But I accept the "sometimes" as high praise from you.

    ;-)

    Parent

    This is sheer idiocy (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 20, 2007 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    "He, like Judge Brown and SOS Rice is a black person who didn't toe the Demo line.

    And this a sin that no one is ever forgiven for."

    Colin Powell? JC Watts?

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:09:15 PM EST
    Does that mean you withdraw your "sometimes" comment?


    Parent
    This is ridiculous as well (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:14:36 AM EST
    What spurs you to ask that question?

    Explain your reasoning Jim?


    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    And a good morning to you.

    Since you asked so nicely, "sarcasm."

    Remember the "What an idiot you can be sometimes," comment?

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    i don't agree BTD (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:45:45 AM EST
    i think there's a direct correlation between the level of engagement a justice takes during oral arguments, and the quality of their analysis and opinions on the case.

    justice thomas has to be the most unoriginal thinker the court has seen since its inception; he appears to be almost completely disinterested in what's going on. this appearance of disinterest plays out in his written opinions, which are, for lack of a better term, weak.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:05:38 AM EST
    " think there's a direct correlation between the level of engagement a justice takes during oral arguments, and the quality of their analysis and opinions on the case."

    Scalia?

    Parent

    Scalia is a perfect example (none / 0) (#13)
    by redfish on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:16:41 AM EST
    he likes to have an image as a formidable intellect so he talks a lot during arguments.

    Parent
    Seeing that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:22:43 AM EST
    the opinions are drafted by his clerks, I wouldn't put much on that either. He can just agree w/ Scalia and use his clerks to write the (weak) opinion.
    He is not qualified IN ANY WAY to decide cases of the level of the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    if they're "pretty much meaningless", (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    why bother having them? just have the lawyers submit their briefs and be done with it. why waste valuable time on what, according to redfish, is merely form over substance?

    oral arguments serve a purpose, they give the respective sides the opportunity to breathe life into the dry words of a brief. shakespeare isn't shakespeare, until put on a stage, with actors creating a three dimensional set out of his ideas.

    his works didn't become timeless merely because they were printed, any idiot can do that. no, it's always been the oral presentation that's brought those concepts whole, to new generations of audiences over the centuries.

    in the case of the USSC, it's audience participation that stirs the pot, forcing the antagonists, under the glare of hot klieg lights, to intelligently defend their position. it's the greatest stage of all, and only actors worthy of that spotlight should be allowed a part in it.

    clearly, justice thomas has proven himself, time and again, not worthy of the role he's cast in.

    In Defense of Clarence Thomas | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment