Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

[BenNatuf]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

What a completely ignorant bunch of racist bullshit.

Thomas is a good jurist, and his opinions are well thought out and well written, his dissents are brilliant.

The Supreme court is the setter of precedent, they are not bound by stare decisis they are the source of it. Any strict adherance to this philosophy by the SCOTUS would result in them never making any precedent setting decission. We are not governed by judicial philosophy we are governed by laws and the constitution. If a past decission was wrong in the eyes of the court they should overturn it, not bind themselves buy some dumb assed construct of a judicial continuum.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

Why? Because he's black? What the hell's the matter with you. Geeze, it's 2011. Get over that shit.

Likely because he's Black and conservative. A race traitor. The libs are particularly venomous when someone they feel a right to claim ownership over doesn't cooperate. They like their blacks in rhetorical chains.

 

[Synthaholic]

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

Why? Because he's black? What the hell's the matter with you. Geeze, it's 2011. Get over that shit.

Likely because he's Black and conservative. A race traitor. The libs are particularly venomous when someone they feel a right to claim ownership over doesn't cooperate. They like their blacks in rhetorical chains.

Yes, we all really like Colin Powell because we've been able to keep him in chains.

What a dope you are!

 

[BenNatuf]

I tend not to ask many questions as well. It's much better to listen.

1. You aren't a supreme court justice

Are you?

2. The process requires questioning.

Evidently not

3. Anyone who is too stupid to ask a question doesn't belong ing the bench

anyone who's too stupid to realize exactly how much material justices have before them to make their decisions without ever posturing through the first question is too stupid to comment about anyone else. Do you really think the questions are designed because the justice asking them needs to know what the law is? The questions are nothing but posturing in an attempt to persuade other justices to their side of the argument or set up a dissent. You think a SCOTUS justice needs to ask a lawyer about the law and or its application? I'm pretty sure they know it better than the lawyers. Seriously, do you think when they ask the questions they don't already know the answer?

 

[BenNatuf]

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

I find her being a racist to be plain ignorant.

I'm going to bet, dim bulb, that if I look at your posts, I'm going to find out you're racist trash. But no one criticizes Thomas b/c he's black. He's criticized because he's an incompetent jurist.

Nice rants, though, loon.

No, you're criticizing him because the uppity negro escaped your chains.

 

[BenNatuf]

I tend not to ask many questions as well. It's much better to listen.

But I imagine you would ask if you had a concern that wasn't being addressed.

That's why its a troubling allegation. If its true (and again, big if), you're telling me in 5 years a SCOTUS Justice has never once had a concern or issue that wasn't addressed by the other 8? I find that kinda hard to believe.

Why would you? Do you actually think there's any legal argument or question that hasn't been asked in the two or more years and multiple court appearances and briefs it takes a case to get to them? it really is likely that none of the justrices have any "real" questions, and only ask them for the benefit of the other justices (in a lame attempt to sway them), or to set themselves up for thier own dissent.

 

[BenNatuf]

Dat cuz he black...

BTW, don't you have a cross burning to go to?

Websters abridged notes that the proper pronunciation of the word democrat is "fucking bigot."

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

Well, he's already proven he's ignorant, so no surprise there.

Thing is, thinking Thomas is stupid has nothing to do with partisanship. You will never here me say Scalia is stupid, even though I can't think of a thing we would agree upon. Ethically challenged? Absolutely. But not stupid

Thats because he's not an uppity negro who should know better.

 

[BenNatuf]

You people are pathetic. He has a long list of written opinions. He doesn't have to put on a show for your benefit to prove that a Black Conservative can be intelligent.

Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Thomas

No one ever said his clerks didn't draft opinions.

But, again for people who don't have a clue, the process requires questioning. And any attorney who has ever argued an appeal knows what it means when you have a hot bench and when you don't.

Thed one without a clue appeares to be you, as obviously the process is moving forward nicely.

 

[Synthaholic]

She is partisan no doubt, but that is just a plain ignorant attack Jill!

Well, he's already proven he's ignorant, so no surprise there.

Thing is, thinking Thomas is stupid has nothing to do with partisanship. You will never here me say Scalia is stupid, even though I can't think of a thing we would agree upon. Ethically challenged? Absolutely. But not stupid

Thats because he's not an uppity negro who should know better.

You are clearly obsessed with race. Seek help.

 

[BenNatuf]

Thomas isn't smart enough to ask questions. And, frankly, he doesn't understand or believe in stare decisis, so it's not like the answers to his questions would matter anyway. *shrug*

he's an embarrassment.

What, exactly, is it about his understanding of Stare Decisis is it that you take issue with?

he doesn't believe in it.

he's a Supreme Cout justice, he is not bound by the errant decissions of prior courts. Do you think courts should have paid hoamge to the ignorant theory of the continuum of error on Roe? Brown?

 

[BenNatuf]

Nothing about Thomas ever impressed me. Not one thing.

Him keeping his trap shut is a-okay in my book.

and that is exactly why he keeps his mouth shut.

which is why he is considered ill-equipped to be a justice.

he should have learned the socratic method in law school.

No, we know the reason you consider him ill equipped and it has nothiing to do with whether or not he asks any questions. You're just mad because you're deed of ownership was returned.

 

[BenNatuf]

Well fuck, how did he do this then?

{SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et al., PETITIONERS v.
STEVEN PYETT et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[April 1, 2009]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., is enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974) , forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.}


14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

Hey, I understand. He's black - he HAS to obey you, his leftists massahs. He's been uppity, thinking for himself and shit - you HAVE to lie about him and smear him, think of the example he sets?

Since he is a complete idiot the only possible explanation is that he copied it off of someone else.

no. his law clerks are smart.

unlike him.

No, you're a racist, just like your progressive forbearers.

 

[Jroc]

You have obviously polished your irritating posting skills on another board. My guess is you were either kicked off or were ignored to the point you went away

Seen your type before....you won't last long

He is on a continual flaming spree.

ROFL

I'm smart, highly educated and quick witted. I am the bane of the left.



Really? What will happen to me?

You are the bane of the rational.

As to the OP, Thomas appears to be Scalia's bot as he invariably votes the same way AFTER seeing which way Nino votes.

Has he ever voted counter to Scalia?

Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[99]



According to Scalia, Thomas is more willing to overrule constitutional cases: "If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."[109] Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; he has said, "When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."[110] Thomas believes that an erroneous decision can and should be overturned, no matter how old it is.[110]



His dissent in Safford Unified School District v. Redding illustrates his application of this postulate in the Fourth Amendment context. School officials in the Safford case had a reasonable suspicion that 13-year-old Savana Redding was illegally distributing prescription-only drugs. All the justices concurred that it was therefore reasonable for the school officials to search Redding, and the main issue before the Court was only whether the search went too far by becoming a strip search or the like.[128] All justices but Thomas concluded that this search violated the Fourth Amendment.



Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BenNatuf]

Well, he's already proven he's ignorant, so no surprise there.

Thing is, thinking Thomas is stupid has nothing to do with partisanship. You will never here me say Scalia is stupid, even though I can't think of a thing we would agree upon. Ethically challenged? Absolutely. But not stupid

Ok.. The problem I have with you is you seem to think that people who have a different view then you are somehow inferior to you, which is total BS. We can disagree with someone without calling him or her "stupid" and for you too present yourself (to me anyway) as some kind of moderate is a joke. I might not agree with Mr. Thomas's methods on the court, but he's far from stupid, if you actually believe that then prove it.

where did i present myself as a moderate to you? i am a moderate on israel, which is what we were discussing, since i'm neither neo-con, bomb bomb bomb iran nutcase, nor terrorist apologist. but i do believe that was in pm's and i do believe that's a bannable offense.

as for the rest.. no, i don't have to prove to you that thomas is stupid. it's pretty common knowledge among lawyers and judges that he is. and i'm not going to start parsing his writings and waste my time for someone to whom it wouldn't matter anyway because you agree with him. many pretend constitutionalists do.

Nah, its pretty much commonly shared opinion between stupid and ignorant leftist racists.

 

[BenNatuf]

We've already established that you are.

So go for it, find racists posts from me.



Bull-fucking-shit.

You attack, not criticize. You attack because he is a black man who DARES to defy the democratic party. You can deny all you like, but it is rank racism. Sure you hate Roberts as you hate all who are not party members, but NEVER will you launch the kind of filth at him that you do Thomas, because in your mind Thomas is a defiler, one who has defied his role as a a loyal minion of the party - as ALL blacks are expected to be.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, J is a blind political hack but she isnt a racist .

you know, i'm neither racist nor hack. you should know i have a lot of people i respect on the opposite side of the aisle. but what rightwingnut neocons or racists do when someone criticizes their little pets like thomas and palin (since they worship ignorance) is to scream racism or sexism at the top of their lungs.

because that's so intellectual on their part.

*rant over*

oh.. .and thank you for having my back... even in a left-handed kind of way.

No, yopu're a racist hack who believes you own the opinion of all black people and gods forbid one should buck.

 

[BenNatuf]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, J is a blind political hack but she isnt a racist .

This thread demonstrates otherwise.

Jillian is a racist who views blacks as property of the left. Those who DARE move to the center or rights are to be destroyed at all costs.

Supporting the "rights" of blacks to be obedient leftists is not supporting civil rights for blacks.

You might has missed this post.
J is a lawyer so she is all up in the stink of it I suggest you give her the benefit of the doubt on this and walk back towards the line you have crossed.

I'm guessing it's because he's black. I'm sure William Joyce can back me up on this.

no. it's because he was never equipped to be on the supreme court.

nice try, though.

No, she's a left wing hack racist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clarence is a RW hack of the highest order. He's a plant of the GOP to legislate their RW agenda from the bench.

He should be stripped from his position. He should be in jail not on the bench.

The man is a criminal. Plain and simple.

Yet, if he were a black liberal sitting there rubber stamping your views, you would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, even if he never uttered a word or wrote an opinion.

 

[BenNatuf]

Clarence is a RW hack of the highest order. He's a plant of the GOP to legislate their RW agenda from the bench.

He should be stripped from his position. He should be in jail not on the bench.

The man is a criminal. Plain and simple.

Yet, if he were a black liberal sitting there rubber stamping your views, you would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, even if he never uttered a word or wrote an opinion.

yep. They like the ones that stay on the plantation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Reid, Rangel, and Frank are elected officials who can be voted out of office.

So?

They are corrupt - but leftists so you defend them.

Thomas is supposed to be completely unbiased and impartial and has a lifetime appointment.

Nope, Thomas is supposed to follow the constitution and the law, something that Ginsburg and the other radicals don't do.

You're a stupid little shit, aren't you?

Far smarter than you, not that that's saying much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has he ever voted counter to Scalia?

Voted against the constitution? No, I don't think so.

Has Gingsburg ever supported the constitution?