Associated Press recently noted that it’s been two years and more than 140 cases since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during the court’s oral arguments. “If I think a question will help me decide a case, then I’ll ask that question,†he said in a C-SPAN interview last fall. “Otherwise, it’s not worth asking because it detracts from my job.†True, some of his colleagues can be chatty to a fault, but isn’t an inquiring mind essential to a justice’s job, and to justice?
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- mxyzptlk on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- Predestined on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 10/11
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 10/11
- DavidB on Open thread 10/11
- DavidB on Open thread 10/11
- Monkeyhawk on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- American_Way on Open thread 10/11
- DavidB on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- American_Way on Open thread 10/11
91 Comments
I am not a lawyer and I don’t play a judge on TV either…..
..but if the judge reads all the briefs and does all the necessary research oral arguements are really just a circus anyway. Grandstanding from what I’ve heard. As much poking the judges who may disagree with you as poking the attorneys.
Biggest non-story of the day.
You cannot tell me that the man hasn’t had a single question in all those cases, that everything he wanted to know what answered in the casefile.
Or perhaps he’s just that bad of a judge that he can’t think of any good questions.
Or perhaps its better than to question his own solid neocon belief system, if he asks a question, dear lord, he may have to reexamine his predetermined outcome.
It would be interesting to hear from the resident members of the bar on this. But from everything I’ve read and seen about the Supreme Court oral arguements are just a necessary side show. If you can’t make up your mind about the case by reading the briefs then maybe you shouldnt be there.
Maybe his mind is already made up before he hears the case, kinda like the decider.
Then there’s that old saying: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.”
Thomas’s entire SCOTUS career has been to be Scalia’s “boy.”
Or maybe his thoughts are elsewhere?
MonkeySquat
Typical tolerant liberal today arent we now.
Judges and lawyers are paid precisely because they are omniscient. They are all Deities (in their own minds).
Destroy lawyers.
“Thomas’s entire SCOTUS career has been to be Scalia’s “boy.”
—————
Why look. Is that MonkeyHawk under that white hood? Sure enough is.
Hi MonkkkeyHawkkk!
He doesn’t have to ask questions. Tony Scalia has has already told Clarence what his decision is.
Thomas’s entire SCOTUS career has been to be Scalia’s “boy.”
-Monkeyboy
What a sad commentary.
Some 140 years after the Civil War and a black Supreme Court Justice can’t make decisions without being labeled “boy”. Keep up the racist slander, Monkeyboy.
If this Judge makes a habit of not asking questions during sessions, has anyone checked to see if he’s awake?
During the last 15 years, of the 14 cases that Justices Scalia and Thomas both provided deicsions on, Thomas and Scalia were in agreement on 12 or 14 cases.
Ginsburg and Breyer were in agreement on 13 or 15 on cases to which they both provided decisions.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/landmarkvotes.html
So Monkey”boy”, Is Ginsburg Breyer’s “girl” since she sided with him a greater percentage of time then Thomas did with Scalia? Perhaps if Ginsburg were black you would make that demeaning and hateful assesment about her as well.
As I understand the apellate court decision making process, the “facts” of the case are not being retried, it is the case law itself. it is the underlying constitutionalality and legality of the process that is being examined. That being the case, questions are only window dressing and an opportunity (what is it, an hour?) for the lawyers to make their arguments heard publicaly. The real meat of their arguments are in their briefs. The oral quesitons just give the Supremes a chance to ask questions that they undoubltedly already know the response to, as it is contained in the brief. It may possibly give the lawyer representing some side to give some clarifying remarks, but I believe it to be windowdressing for the most part.
This is a nonstory.
Thomas agreed with Scalia on 12 “of” 14 cases.
Ginsburg agreed with Breyer on 13 “of” 15 cases.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/landmarkvotes.html
He probably just wants the hearing to get over so he can get back to his tapes.
I’ll jump in here a bit. I don’t find Justice Thomas’ lack of questioning counsel during argument all that disturbing. As was posted upthread, the “meat and potatoes” of an appeal are contained in the briefs. I speculate that most appeals could be satisfactorily resolved without oral argument at all.
That said, reading the briefs submitted by the parties may, upon occasion, raise a question in the mind of one or more of the appellate court justices which is not answered by the briefs themselves. In such a case, the Justice should ask questions of counsel to see if the position of either respective side might, within the confines of the case being heard, answer this question. Similarly, the brief of one or more of the parties might be ambiguous on a point; the questioning provides an opportunity to resolve this.
The asking of questions to merely ask questions, however, does little to nothing to add to the case itself, IMO. Again, the briefs should present the basis for the appeal and the legal basis for the position of each party, and if done well, not too many questions should remain. Recall, please, that I’ve never been an appellate court justice, and have never been lead counsel on an appeal, so obviously that which appears above represent nothing more than my opinion, based upon some observations of appeals during my 28 years of practice.
the book, “The Brethern-Inside the Supreme Court” is a behind the scene look at SCOTUS. The conferences, research, and investigations that go into each decision are very extensive. What is scary are the political deal making that goes into decisions. Like posted upthread, the oral arguments are pretty much ‘for show’ and have little/nothing to do with the decision. No story here at all.
Maybe Thomas wishes to be polite. From what I’ve watched in reviews of the Supreme Court, the justices often interrupt the lawyer before he is finished speaking with questions or pose another question, then do the scold routine before the attorney has finished.
Perhaps Thomas does not wish to get into that sort of dialogue?
From the TV show that presented Thomas and his life. He appears to be quick witted and talented in speaking ability. So, I don’t think there is any problem there.
Perhaps he is prone to expletive and is just curbing his appetite for said. :)
“Regular” offers –
“Perhaps he is prone to expletive….”
And why would that be, “Regular?”
Okay, I’ll admit my characterization of Thomas as Scalia’s “boy” was a bit inflammatory. But at least I put it in quotes which should have implied a bit of irony do discerning readers.
It’s probably too easy to play the race card when it comes to Thomas. Everyone in the world knew he was not the best legal mind in America when Bush I nominated him. Thomas wasn’t the best African American legal mind available in 1991. And everyone in America knew that Poppy had to appoint an African American justice to replace Thurgood Marhsall.
Thomas has a lifelong chip on his shoulder due to the advancements he made through college and law school and the legal profession because he resents that Affirmative Action might have demeaned his personal achievements. For better or for worse, however, the reality of the situation is that Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be where he is today had it not been for liberals insiting on equal opportunity among the races.
Liberals gave Thomas a boost up the ladder of success and once he got to the top, he’s steadfastly voted to pull the ladder up behind him. That’s pretty hypocritical on every level: morally, legally, egotistically, civilly…
With 9 justices on the court, I suspect more then enough questions are being asked.
If an attorney can’t make their case withoug being prodded by the Judges, then why should the Judges help them along, unless they are there to push a political agenda one way or the other.
If I wanted to argue that MonkeyBrain was an idiot, I would present 20 or 30 of his posts, then make some supporting comments (like “See this!”) and if I didn’t make my case with the evidence presented and my eloquent oral argument, then why should the judges help me along?
Thanks, MH, for confirming your prejudice. So many on the left expect African-Americans to pigeonhole their ideology into what you expect them to believe; if they dare to stray off the plantation, they are an “Uncle Tom” or are someone’s “boy.” How dare those people think for themselves, huh? Try, MH, to step in the 21st century with [most of] the rest of us?
Oral arguments (and I’ve done lots) are mostly a side-show. Rarely is there something discussed in oral arguments that is not far more fully fleshed out in the brief. At this level, that is even more true; SCOTUS, remember, regularly receives amicus briefs from interested parties who weigh in with their own perspectives.
For example, here’s a list of amicus briefs in support of respondant in DC v. Heller. BTW, respondant here is Heller, so these are those arguing to uphold the Ct. of Appeals decision and strike down the DC law.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
There is a similar list of amicus briefs filed on the DC side.
If a reasonable argument can be made (and even some unreasonable ones), they will be made fully in the briefs.
Some people are active listeners, who ask lots of questions and engage; other people prefer to watch others and learn simply by observing. The justices are bright folks, across the board; the needed questions will get asked, but it matters not WHO asks. Equating competence with asking questions in such a case is ludicrous.
Some judges simply enjoy interacting with counsel; it must be refreshing to talk to a new face other than judges. And some are, yes, grandstanding.
Oral arguments are exciting (and nerve-rackingly scary at times!). They are the public face of the court, they are time-honored tradition. But they rarely make a difference. For a lawyer, being conservative in orals makes sense; rarely, will a case be won in orals, but it can certainly be lost.
“Learn to get in touch with the silence within yourself and know that everything in this life has a purpose.”
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
Maybe he is just comfortable with the silence within himself. A wise person indeed.
GM I am always reminded of the adage ‘Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer’. I think some supremes like to hear their own voices and others are content to listen and read to make decisions. Thomas is silent. This has always been his demeanor unless he has something meaningful to say and then he is very verbose and ‘articulate’.
“Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer”
Excellent advice for a trial attorney - an advocate. Not for a judge. He’s supposed to want to know both sides; he’s not advocating for a particular position.
I agree very much, however, that much can be learned (often much more) by simply being quiet and observing. Moreover, as I think about it, Thomas need not prove anything to anyone. He has reached the pinnacle of his profession.
Now that you mention the Amicus brief and the Heller case:
Don’t forget that Obama and Clinton are both failed to support the 2nd Amendment in the Amicus Brief signed by the vast majority of Congress a couple of weeks ago.
55 Senators and 250 House members signrf the Amicus Brief supporting the 2nd Amendment.
John McCain signed it. Obama/Clinton did NOT.
Here’s THE list:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/congressmen_amicus_brief_0208.html?sid=ST2008020800127
And here’s a link to the actual Brief:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/politics/DC_Gun_Rights_Amicus_Brief_020808.pdf?sid=ST2008020800127
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Second Amendment provides: “A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Congress adopted that wording and proposed it to the States in 1789. It became part of the Bill of Rights which the States ratified in 1791. As the text and the drafting history demonstrate, the Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of individuals to possess and keep ordinary firearms.
“And everyone in America knew that Poppy had to appoint an African American justice to replace Thurgood Marhsall.
Liberals gave Thomas a boost up the ladder of success and once he got to the top, he’s steadfastly voted to pull the ladder up behind him.”
-Monkey”boy”
Liberals just hate it when their own unfair ideas come back to bite them.
Liberal Idea:
Nominating a Justice, accepting an applicant, or hiring a candidate simply because of his or her skin color. Notice Monkey”boy” does not oppose Thurgood Marshall’s nomination based on race.
Liberal outrage:
Those who are nominated, accepted, or hired have views that are independent, fair and conservative.
Monkey”boy” is seething over Clarence Thomas’s nomination.
When those who are propelled to power by unjust liberal policies turn out to have conservative views, Oh the horror.
Message to Liberals: If you hate Justice Thomas’s conservative bent so much, perhaps you should have thought twice before making the racist requirement in society that people be treated in regards to their skin color. Thomas is a highly competent Justice albeit he was nominated because he is both black and conservative.
Racial and Gender mandates are demeaning to those who benefit and unfair to everybody else.
Interesting, “ksgrm” –
That you’d choose a quotation from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the Angel of Death lady.
Good choice, since Clarence Thomas is basically brain-dead when it comes to the history of American jurisprudence. He’s a clear #9 on a nine-member team. He has (as “GMC70″ noted) “…reached the pinnacle of his profession.” And we all know how high in esteem Cons hold the legal profession.
Thomas gamed the system and turns is back on others who might benefit from the system.
In antebellum days, there was a concept on Southern plantations that today’s Cons have embraced to this day: the “House N*gger.”
Although he was held in bondage and considered a sub-species to white cotton planters, the “House N*gger was smart enough to get along by going along. J.C. Watts was the (literal) “*House* N*gger” for the Republic Party until he realized his political career was going nowhere except to be a (rare) black face of Republicanism.
I am often amazed at the liberal non-tolerance for blacks that make it while telling conservatives that they should be more tolerant.
As bad as the libs think Bush 43 has been as a prez look at the large number of blacks and minorities he has appointed to high offices.
Talk is cheap as Monkey points out but actions speak much louder.
Monkey see my latest post and take it to heart. Thank you for proving my point.
Monkey you have also brought to mind a the great Sooner JC Watts who wasn’t ‘black’ enough to be invited to the ‘Black Caucus’ which was formed by and ran by liberal democrats.
Just keep adding it on Monkey. As MLK would say ‘When will you judge us by our character and not by the color of our skin?’
MonkkeyHawkkk doesn’t know when to stop digging.
Outlander I really want him to keep this up. It gives me fodder to bury him in.
“rfl” offers –
“Notice Monkey”boy” does not oppose Thurgood Marshall’s nomination based on race.”
Thurgood Marhsall was lead attorney on Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et al, which many consider *the* landmark SCOTUS decision of the 20th Century.
The first time Clarence Thomas sat in the SCOTUS chambers was behind the front desk.
Hardly a comparison. (Remember tha, all of you Cons who want to rail about “experience” during the presidential general election campaign).
“Thomas…was nominated because he… is black….”
Yup.
It’s become obvious how many people think. Some think the rules are more important than the facts, and others think the other way. Authority vs. Freedom. It’s been going on for a long time; and probably both ways of thought are necessary. And apparently, we are born conservatives or liberals. It’s wired into us.
I wonder if the AP and the WE are criticizing Thomas because he is black or because he is a conservative?
Let’s see an in-depth analysis by the press on all 9 of em.
Good God, MH:
How DARE an upity black have an opinion that we liberals disagree with! Doesn’t he KNOW that he OWES liberals his loyalty? Doesn’t he know his place? Why, we gave him everything he has, he owes us!! Gosh, without us good liberals, he’s still be in the fields pickin’ that cotton!! And now, after WE give him an opportunity (which he took advantage of with his own abilities), he has the audacity to actually hold independent opinions. HOW DARE HE!
That’s MH’s position, spelled out clearly for all to see, stripped of its self-rightous rhetoric.
Yea, MH. There’s “house n*ggers,” as you put it, but it’s not limited to the antebellum south. It’s alive and well in the democratic party. The democrats expect blacks to owe their allegiance to the party - a party that historically has done damn little for them except take them for granted. Hell, when it counted, Republicans provided the votes to pass meaningful civil rights legislation; democrats were still wearing white robes. And now you’re simply pissed that Thomas isn’t living up to your expectations and doing what he’s told. He owes you, after all.
Up thread, you noted what “everybody knows.” In nearly every case, most of what “everybody knows” is dead wrong. Beware what “everybody knows;” “Everybody” is usually wrong.
Justice Thomas refuses to do what he’s told. Good for him; too bad for you. But how dare YOU expect him, or anyone, to conform what they believe to your expectation. How dare YOU expect blacks to tow the party line, or they aren’t “black enough.”
Could the democratic party be any more demeaning, any more condescending, any more insulting to what they expect to be a core constituancy than to demand that all blacks be their “house n*ggers” (your choice of word, MH) or they will be ostracized and destroyed (look, indeed, at what the Black Caucus did to JC Watts)?
How DARE Justice Thomas expect to be judged on the content of his character and his achievements rather than on the color of his skin!
You write that he has a chip on his shoulder because he resents that affirmative action has demeaned his achievements. Yet YOU demean his achievements when you demand that they come at the price of abandoning his individual conscience.
That is the ultimate expression of racism.
And you have the gall to wrap yourself up in the self-rightous cloak of tolerance, as you demonstrate none. As you can probably see, I have little tolerance for your brand of self-serving hyprocricy.
_____
Oh, BTW: #9 on the team? That’s easy. Ginsburg. Just read Roper v. Simmons. I don’t mind it when justices disagree with me; I just ask that they base constitutional law on the constitution. Ginsburg can’t even get that right; she doesn’t even pretend to try.
Bravo GM you said it so much better than I tried to do. When the cruel light of day hits a bigoted liberal they start to shrivel up. I can see Monkey melting as we speak.
No ksgrm, he’s not melting. He’s busy stinking up another topic.
Philosophically, it bothers me that there seems to be a “quota” for appointments to SCOTUS. Justice Marshall was replaced by a Black justice; while Justice O’Connor was not replaced by another woman, that seemed to be OK, as Justice Ginsberg was already sitting. When, oh when, will we as a society arrive at the place where race, sex, etc., is no longer a consideration, and in the case of SCOTUS, ability is the key? OK, enough dreaming; I return you to the regularly scheduled programming.
VT I too am looking forward to that day. Ability and adherence to the constitution should be the key. Always. As long as politics is involved this unfortunately will never be the case.
I still remember the hearings on Clarence Thomas’ appointment. Being from Oklahoma I had some insight on Anita Hill. This was the most transparent attempt to torpedo a candidate every initiated by Ted Kennedy. Thankfully it tanked as it should have. Thomas has been a good justice and his opinions are insightful and constitutionally accurate IMOHO.
There’s nothing racial to it.
Other than that a LOT of white people have their politics screwed up.
If people really voted theirs and the country’s best interest? Republicans wouldn’t even be on the political stage.
Three words.
Stupid white men.
You either own the house.-Republicans
Or ya work in or THINK you work in the house.-Anybody that isn’t rich and votes Republican.
Monkeyhawk has correctly assessed Thomas. I suspect Thomas has serious ego issues as well.
Max I did run into him on that other thread. Think I’ll just let him talk to himself on that one.
JR I received a very good book for a recent birthday, Pocket Positives, and thought of you when I read this one.
“The greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances. We carry the seeds of the one or the other about with us in our minds wherever we go.”
You need to cultivate the seeds of happiness in your mind and stop thinking that the republicans in your lifes orbit are out to get you.
GMC, regarding your comment on Roper v. Simmons; it seems to me that Ginsburg didn’t write an opinion in that case (pause while I take a look; now I’m back). Yep, Kennedy wrote the majority; Stevens a concurring in which Ginsburg joined.
I’m not quarreling with what I perceive to be your point about the decision. While not analogous to Brown vs. Board, it seems to me that both decisions (together with others, to be sure) used a bunch of social science studies to get where they got. Roper, however, also looked to the laws of other countries, which is bothersome to be sure. It may be that you, as I, have a problem with the “evolving standard” argument, with which it seems to me we are stuck in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.
Uncle Tom Thomas doesn’t have to ask any questions.
He just votes the way Ol’ Masser Scalia tells him to.
Appointed by Daddy. Threw the election to the Son.
Perks have their priviledges, yass, boss.
“The greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our dispositions and not on our circumstances. We carry the seeds of the one or the other about with us in our minds wherever we go.”
In other words, pay no attention to theives stealing democracy, the rich preying on the poor, and patriotic soldiers dying for Big Oil in Iraq.
Be happy.
Yup, pure CON — “It’s all about MEEE!”
Nope, “ksgrm” –
I’m not melting.
I’m noticing that no one has refuted the issues I’ve brought up about Clarence Thomas. Instead, I get you (who admit you’re inarticulate) and “GMC70″ spewing counter-intuitive and disingenuous rhetoric. The 1964 Republican caucus has exactly *what* in common with today’s Republic Party? Remember when there were such things as *liberal* Republicans? Not anymore.
The whole “Party of Lincoln” fiction has been dead and gone since Strom Thurmond and Phill Graham and all the others switched to the new racist political faction: the Republic Party.
Even ol’ “Regular” had to admit that Clarence Thomas was nominated to the court by George H.W. Bush “because he was black.” None of you can make a case that Thomas was the best legal mind to appoint to the SCOTUS in 1991. None of you can make a case that Thomas was the best African American legal mind to appoint to the SCOTUS in 1991. All you can come up with is maybe… perhaps… possibly… Clarence Thomas was the most reliably conservative black man in the judicial system available.
The truth is blunt. Sometimes you have to come to grips that less-thean-adequate people turn up in positions of power. Even though Roberty Byrd renounced and rejected the Ku Klux Klan in the 1930s, Republic Party partisans resort to the KKK slam when they have nothing else to resort to.
Even though George WMD Bush’s FEMA failed miserable in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some of you still come up with tortured rationalizations for Brownie “doin’ a heckuva job.”
CapnAmerica
Posted March 4, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
In other words, pay no attention to theives stealing democracy, the rich preying on the poor, and patriotic soldiers dying for Big Oil in Iraq.
Be happy.
Yup, pure CON — “It’s all about MEEE!”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In your accusation you in fact incriminate yourself and your liberal friends.
The poor are stealing from the rich, and not the other way around. What exactly have the rich taken from you Capn? How have the rich prayed upon you, exactly? And if you didn’t have oil, now what exactly would be the impact on you?
Cap you rank right up there with Monkey with your racial bias. Blacks are ok as long as they toe your party line.
Actually the quote I wrote for JR and you reprinted says that your crappy attitude doesn’t have to rule you. You have the seed of hope and happiness in you also. Unless your seed has dried out from lack of nuturing or exposure to the light of day.
Very true ksgrm. A person can be happy in a prison, or so unhappy that they kill themselves in their mansion. (Keith Ledger anyone) The difference is the presence or absence of hope. Hope comes from inside.
Monkey if you bothered to read my response to VT you would have seen my comment that appointments are much too political. Until the method of appointing is changed this will continue.
This said I firmly believe that Thomas is a very good appointment. I am very proud to call him a conservative in his personal beliefs and also in the opinions he has given since going to the supremes.
Where did I say I was inarticulate? That may or may not be true. Just not sure where you got that one.
Very true Outlander.
“There’s nothing racial to it.
Monkeyhawk has correctly assessed Thomas.”
- J R
“It’s probably too easy to play the race card when it comes to Thomas”
-Monkey”boy”
It looks like J R is Monkey’s “boy”. Which is why it is so ironic that what J R said is the complete opposite of what Monkey”boy” has actually said. Monkey”boy” is busy playing the race card while J R is saying there is nothing racial about it. In conclusion, J R says that Monkey”boy” has correctly assesed Thomas.
Seems like a real problem with reading comprehension failing to overcome base loyalty to a fellow liberal poster.
“Even ol’ “Regular” had to admit that Clarence Thomas was nominated to the court by George H.W. Bush “because he was black.”
I never recalled writing that MonkeyHawk.
Please do not attribute positions to me I did not write.
sometimes it seems that people like JR (I hate people who disagree with me) and Capn (I hate everyone) would both be better off in China. After all,in that country no dissent is allowed, either in print or in public. There is only ONE accepted political thought, and nothing else is allowed.
Normally healthy discourse and disagreement in many cases can bring compromise, change and a cooperation. But reading the words of those two, they are the only ones entitled to an opinion, and everyone who doesn’t toe their extremist line is wrong, a target for hate or to be ignored.
Yep…seems like China would be a good fit for them. No tolerance, no disagreement, and no opinions allowed.
Liberals denigrate Clarence Thomas because they say he is a beneficiary of race based preference and yet he doesn’t think like a liberal. As if the whole “affirmative action” movement is intended to create little liberal soldiers. Maybe it is.
Unlike liberals though, Clarence Thomas may realize that, as long as we continue to have race based preferences, we will never get to the “color blind society” that Dr. King espoused.
Oh, here’s stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Black Democrat Mayor taking private land from the poor, and giving it to rich people for private use. Which Supreme Court justices voted FOR the stealing of Private land for Private use?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wwwboard/messages/4952.html
It seems that 6000 peaceful, legal residents of Riviera Beach, Florida, are poor, blue-collar, mostly black folks. These poor, blue-collar, mostly black folks apparently simply do not pay enough in taxes to satisfy Mayor Brown. Mayor Brown and others are so unsatisfied with how much tax money they’re getting from these poor, blue-collar, mostly black folks, that they are LEAPING on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that it’s perfectly acceptable to take from poor folks to give to the rich, in order to do exactly that.
It seems that, in practice, now, today, “HERE”, when government CAN screw you, they WILL screw you! While San Francisco is busy banning and confiscating firearms, in violation of two seperate articles of the Bill of Rights, Florida’s proving that the entire CONCEPT of property ownership is archaic, and can and will be ignored altogether if it serves the interests of big business, rich yacht aficiondos, or fat-cat politicians like Mayor Michael Brown.
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is just another branch of the federal government, saying it’s OK to take peoples’ property from them for OTHER private use, people like Mayor Michael Brown (Democrat) can tell entire beighborhoos made of up poor, blue-collar, mostly black lawful citizens, that they can go F themselves, and leave the keys on the way out!!
Perhaps this is just an argument of definition. What is “stealing from the poor”:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp
As Krugman puts it,
Bush’s tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes … The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent.
Stop for a moment and examine the language Krugman is using here: “a large-scale transfer of income.” What “income,” exactly, is he talking about transferring?
It’s clear enough that when you tax the incomes of people who work for a living, you can transfer it to people who don’t in the form of welfare payments. More generally, when you tax the 20 percent of American households that pay 85 percent of total federal income taxes, and use that money to fund government services that benefit all Americans, you’ve given the other 80 percent of households “income” in the form of goods and services they didn’t pay for.
In other words, in Krugman’s language, when you steal from the rich and give to the poor, the poor now have an “income.”
Now, what if this is run in reverse — if the object is to steal from the poor and give to the rich? Logically, you’d think it would start with imposing higher income taxes on low-income wage earners — or, nowadays, imposing any taxes at all on the 55 million working households that pay no federal income taxes to begin with. You’d then take that money and create welfare programs or government services exclusively for the wealthy.
But no — for Krugman the reverse constitutes “a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent,” simply to tax higher wage earners less and create fewer government services for everyone else.
In other words, it is stealing from the poor simply to steal less from the rich.
You’re right, MH. The truth does hurt. And you’re hurting bad.
You got a clean miss in your response. Let’s deal with these one at a time, shall we?
“Thomas was appointed becasue he was black.”
A black justice, realistically, had to be appointed to be sure. Politically, there was no other option. It needn’t have been Thomas, of course, but this justice had to be black. That was so, of course, because of the democrats’ insistence on group identity politics that made that so.
“Best African-American legal mind.”
Honestly, I could not tell you, today, about the state of available “african-american legal minds” at the time of that appointment. Of course, neither can you. It doesn’t matter, however; your objection to Thomas (talk about being disingenuous!) is not that he doesn’t have an adequate legal mind for the job. It is entirely ideological: he doesn’t hold the approved and acceptable opinions. He doesn’t tow the party line. He doesn’t stay on your plantation. The quality of the legal mind has nothing to do with it; that’s just a fiction you hide behind. The quality of Thomas’ mind, of course, is more than adequate. But that’s not even remotely what your objection is about.
“Was the most reliably conservative black man.” Perhaps. But that’s what presidents do; they appoint justices that reflect their philosophy. Should Obama as president be able to appoint to the Court, he will not look for the “best” mind, he will look for the most reliably [extremely] liberal mind that is up to the job. That is his perogative as president. The difference, of course, is that when Democrats do that (as Clinton did, appointing Ginsburg) Republicans understand that is a president’s perogative; Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3. Democrats, on the other hand, attempt to block nominations for purposes having nothing to do with qualifications, but entirely on ideology.
More democratic hypocricy. I’m shocked.
Calling Thomas, then, “less than adequate” simply reflects your ideology. You objection to Thomas, then and now, is not competence or qualifications, but ideology. So you adopt a racist and condescending attack (and Kapn joins right in) because he dares to disagree with his “liberal patrons.”
In fact, Thomas owes you, democrats, or liberals, nothing. He’s responsible to the Constitution, as he sees it, and his conscience. Period.
What you call “counterintuitive and disingenuous” has a simpler and easier name: sad, unvarnished truth.
You and Kapn are beneath contempt on this one.
And yes, it hurts you. I won’t attempt to salve your conscience for you; you’re free to rationalize away to your heart’s content. But it won’t change the basic truth.
Live with it.
Great comments and insight GMC.
I have nothing further to add to this thread after that. :)
I’m shocked.
What does race have to do with the performance of one American over another on our USSC?
Why is everyone talking about race?
I thought one of the political parties was already color blind?
I’m not usually a cheerleader, but that was excellent GMC.
I’m getting a lot of “yeahbuts” from the usual suspects.
“Yeahbut” George HW Bush *had* to appoint an African American.
“Yeahbut” how can you tell who’s the best African American legal mind?
“Yeahbut” just because he befitted from Affirmative Action should Thomas be expected to actually *approve* of it?!
“Yeahbut” oral presentations to the SCOTUS are “meaningless.” As if all those other justices who ask questions at oral presentations and just grandstanding?! Please.
I read a piece about the SCOTUS awhile back (sorry I couldn’t find a link) about how law clerks who’re hired to serve SCOTUS justices really prefer working for Thomas because all the other justices have a bad habit of *doing their own work!* Thomas just sloughs it off on interns and clerks (and, of course, Scalia’s guidance).
Clarence Thomas is most certainly not the first lightweight legal mind to make it to the SCOTUS and, most certainly, won’t be the last. But he’s the #9 player on this court, by just about every measure. Regardless of race, religion, or creed.
The usual suspects raged against me calling Thomas Scalia’s “boy.” Fair enough. Except I’m not sure which is worse: recognizing reality or practicing it?
Too often, too many Cons rise up because there’s a little kid in the crowd who mentions that the Emperor has no clothes.
You guys don’t want to hear the truth. You reject the truth and revert to name-calling tantrums.
Sounds like Thomas can be the model judge for a computerized justice system.
Checks and balances of current laws, comparing past and present laws and deciding the best and logical course of action.
Who needs a high maintenance human body behind the bench when we can save money on a low maintenance system, 24/7 - 365?
I hear a lot of rumor (lies) spreading:
“I read a piece about the SCOTUS awhile back (sorry I couldn’t find a link) about how law clerks who’re hired to serve SCOTUS justices really prefer working for Thomas because all the other justices have a bad habit of *doing their own work!* Thomas just sloughs it off on interns and clerks (and, of course, Scalia’s guidance).”
Source?
And whining about “you guys can’t handle the truth!”
You guys don’t want to hear the truth. You reject the truth and revert to name-calling tantrums.”
Lying and Whining. SSDD.
That hole is so damn deep now I can’t even see Monkey clawing and scratching any more.
I can still hear him whining though.
Great job GMC.
Again I write:
Ginsburg and Breyer agree on 13 of 15 possible cases of which they both issued decisions.
Thomas and Scalia agree on 12 of 14 possible cases of which they both issued decisions.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/landmarkvotes.html
Yet Monkey stands by his baseless claim that Thomas is Scalia’s boy. He ignores the plain fact that Ginsburg is certainly the mirror image of Thomas in regards to ideologically similar Justices voting in lock step with one another.
Monkey has no grounds for making such claim other than to demean a Black man solely because of his skin color.
“But he’s the #9 player on this court, by just about every measure.”
And your qualified to make that judgement, how, exactly? How many opinions have you read? Oral arguments have you made?
I’m not saying you’re not entitled to your opinion, MH. But let’s be serious.
It wouldn’t matter if he was the greatest legal mind since Blackstone. Your criticism is ENTIRELY IDEOLOGICAL. You dislike him not because he might be, in your rather dubious opinion, a “lightweight” but because he doesn’t vote as you think blacks “should.”
But you’re not honest enough to admit that.
Oh, and which side is doing the “name-calling tantrums?” Hmmmmmmmm? Who raised the label of “house n*gger?” The epithet (as you use it) of “boy?” “Uncle Tom?” Hmmmm?
You’ve had the truth laid out for you, in clear, uncertain terms. You are, in this case, a condescending racist. But you continue to rationalize, nonetheless.
You’re 0-5, MH. You’ve long since struck out; you might as well quit while you’re behind. As for me, I think I’ve beat your hiney enough for one day . . .
Well done to Monkey for being the thread’s favorite whipping “BOY” for making arguments that have no class or basis. Of course I am just implying irony to discerning readers with the quotes.
“rfl” –
Your comparison of Thomas and Ginsburg loses some steam when we go back to the original question of this thread: Has Ginsburge been interested enough in the procedings before the SCOTUS to ask attorneys some questions?
It’s been two years (almost to the day) since Thomas has exhibited consciousness during a SCOTUS session.
And still he whines.
Your comparison of Thomas and Ginsburg loses some steam when we go back to the original question of this thread.
-Monkey
Neither does your assesment that Thomas is Scalia’s boy.
Where is that in the thread?…..Looking…scanning……Nope didn’t see anything about Scalia.
If you don’t want posters debunking your baseless claims, than perhaps you should think twice before posting them.
“has exhibited consciousness”
I’m quite certain that if a SCOTUS lost consciousness, they would call for an ambulance.
To date, there is no record of that in the case
of the Honorable Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
(how many strikes does MH get before he is out?)
Thanks for the rhetorical fart there ksgrm. I’ll file it with “let go let God” and other such drivel.
I saw Thomas do an extended interview with Sean Hannity.
It is hard to sit with Sean Hannity and not look like an absolute sage.
Thomas pulled it off. His IQ and personality skills seem similar to your average foot stool.
gmc,
how many brothers you locked up on bullshit charges? tell us about your compassionate conservative views, support racial profiling? Think glassing over the middle east is a good idea?
“The poor are stealing from the rich, and not the other way around. What exactly have the rich taken from you Capn? How have the rich prayed upon you, exactly?”
Interesting. If the poor steal from the rich so much, Max, why are they still poor?
Looks to me if you want to find evidence of successful widespread theft, you’d look at the people who are rich.
CASE IN POINT–
Barron Hilton, Paris Hilton’s grandfather.
His father, Conrad Hilton who actually built the fortune, said his son was “too damn rich already” and left him a nice sizable ten million dollar inheritance. The billions went to setting up a foundation to help poor kids.
Barron Hilton, with the help of scum-sucking lawyers in the mold of Thomas (or for that matter, GMC) fought and won against the terms of the will and got the billions away from poor children.
And, THANK GOD!, I say.
After all, how else would we get to see his grand-daughter suck some guy’s c*** on the internet. The Hilton family has given us so much–they deserve every penny they’ve stolen.
:roll:
Wow, just wow. This is a group where one decision has everlasting effects, it’s not some game. There is a purpose for the judges asking questions, and to say that there is no purpose, and even worse, Grm’s assertion that his silence means a stable mind? WTF kind of excuse is that?
It’s bull, he should be involved in the process, if not, we can find someone else who will.
“What exactly have the rich taken from me?”
1. They’ve taken my share of off-shore oil. This oil, which belongs to ALL AMERICANS, and the last time I checked, I still carry an American passport, has been given away by Bush to rich oil companies for absolutely no cost.
2. They (the rich) charged me for an arena to benefit themselves. Last time I bought my car at Davis-Moore, it cost me 200 dollars more than it would have so I could under-write skyboxes for the Koch bros.
3. They (the rich) are taxing me for their f*ckin, stinking war of choice to control Iraq’s oil.
That’s just what comes to mind . . .
Hey, Taz?
Did you used to post under NoJoCo?
Never forget that Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.
Come the revolution, that’ll be something to follow up on . . .
“It is better to let folks guess whether you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”
The man gets paid for voting, not runnning his suck.
Read his opinions on the votes. He is doing his job just as effectively as the eigth others.
Most of us have sat in meetings, or been to presentations where people just keep talking to hear themselves speak. If you’ve ever been involved in a public office where you vote, member of a board, or a dozen other decision making processes, you know that Tempus fugit.
How many times has someone else asked the question you had? And open court isn’t the only time the justices get to look or question the information provided to them.
Was a nice thread to vent though.
Thank you Capn for proving at 4:24 what I said at 12:45.
In other words, it is stealing from the poor simply to steal less from the rich.
And as for all that oil being all of our oil, go get it.
Interesting. If the poor steal from the rich so much, Max, why are they still poor?
Capn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fabulous question? That’s a good one to ask the Democrats from Johnson through Clinton. The poor keep getting money for nothing yet they are still poor.
Great question Capn. Why are they still poor. Great question Capn.
BECAUSE THEY NEVER START WORKING TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES!
That’s why they are still poor. They don’t have to work, save, or do anything for themselves. They just wait for their next hand out and spend 100% of it.
The poor are trapped in poverty by the very same welfare programs your party claims is there to take them out of poverty.
Damn Capn, give em all $50,000 a year, and they still be poor.
Give all $100,000 a year, and they still be poor.
How much do you want for doing nothing?
Say Rev C said he can work for $8 an hour at McDonalds or, he can get $8 an hour for not working.
Jimmy Ray told me the other day he doesn’t work for $9 an hour. He told his friend Rev C to stop not working for $8 an hour and move to his town and not work for $9 an hour.
It’s almost like work to not work.
“And as for all that oil being all of our oil, go get it.”
My father-in-law has an oil and gas well on his property for which he is paid a percentage of what is pumped out by the Holl Oil Company.
I should be paid a percentage for the oil that Exxon is pumping from off-shore oil–at least my government should be paid for it.
Instead, I get nothing.
As for your oft-repeated canard that “gov’t help for the poor just makes more poor,” that is an article of faith among the reich-wing; however it is totally false.
Rush Limbaugh went on welfare for two years and now he’s one of the richest men in America.
If you had had your way, he would have lost everything and been stuck in a low-wage job forever vainly trying to get out of it.
Paul Krugman pointed out in “Poverty Poisons Brains” (Wichita Eagle, 19 Feb) that LBJ’s war on poverty shrank children in poverty from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent by 1969. Meanwhile, under Bush-Cheney, it’s back up to 2006.
As for your racist stereotyping of welfare recipients, remember that WHITES far outnumber minorities using welfare.
And Max, you still don’t have any answer for the hundreds of dollars in “tribute” I was forced to pay over several years for a playground for the rich (arena) to which I will never go . . .
These racial comments have gotten entirely out of hand, and it’s embarrassing to see adults going at each other, fighting over who’s more racist.
The fact is, Thomas’s race has absolutely NOTHING to do with his jurisprudence. Just because Thomas happens to nearly always agree with Scalia doesn’t mean that Thomas is Scalia’s “boy”.
It has been said several times, and it is absolutely true, that the substantive issues of the case have been described, and for the most part, decided, in briefs submitted to the USSCT by the attorneys in the case. Oral arguments are held and questions are asked of the attorneys to clear up any remaining indecision on the Constitutional issues described in the briefs.
Thomas’s lack of questions may simply be because the questions he has were already asked by the other Justices. Maybe he makes up his mind before the oral arguments are heard. The briefs are that good.
It may be true that Justice Thomas is not the brightest legal scholar in the country, but he is a Supreme Court Justice nonetheless, and arguments against his jurisprudence should be made in terms of objections to his ideology (originalism), not in terms of the merits of his decision.
*appointment, not decision.