Clarence Thomas - 5 Year Silence

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Ah... more unsupportable partisan bigotry.
How predictable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court's return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades.

Explain how this is meaningful.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Explain how this is meaningful.

Meaningful or not, one thing is isn't is true.

"Lying leftists" is redundant.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Too bad you dems didnt use the same measuring stick for "boy wonder".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who cares how many times he "speaks"? WTF?
You fuckers are derranged.

The argument presented thus far hinges on "he doesn't ask questions" and "He's stupid".
Strong, convincing stuff, that.
[/sarcasm]

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "criticism" is total horse shit.

Indeed.
See:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...not-tell-whether-he-is-there.html#post3354865

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has he ever voted counter to Scalia?

Yes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

1. You aren't a supreme court justice

Neither are you

2. The process requires questioning.

What, specifically, about the process requires justices to ask questions?

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

Says someone with, again, no clue about what she speaks.

Tell us again about the only crime specified in the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

judges ask questions to test the logic of the party's position.

Psst... that's not the court's responsibility -- that responsibility belongs to opposing council.

I have never participated in a meaningless oral argument.

Or any other sort of oral argument.

there is a reason judges do this. it has nothing to do with pomp and circumstance.

Yes... it has to do with people who have already made their decision on the issue in question trying to steer the proceedings in a certain direction.
Tell me: How can you honestly make a decision in a case before you get to oral arguments?

 

[M14 Shooter]

as for the rest.. no, i don't have to prove to you that thomas is stupid.

You do if that's the basis for your argument against him.
Unless you can prove that point, your argument is unsound

it's pretty common knowledge among lawyers and judges that he is.

Just the partisan bigots.

and i'm not going to start parsing his writings...

Mostly because we all know you do not possess the ability to do os.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Give me a break ..I think you're a little too full of yourself and thats evident with the way you post.

who cares what you think?

Good question.
Who cares what YOU think?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has he ever voted counter to Scalia?

Yes.

Indeed.

Voting alignmentOn average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had an 86.7% voting alignment, the highest on the Court, followed by Ginsburg and Souter (85.6%).[95] Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate peaked in 1996, at 97.7%.[95] By 2004, however, other pairs of justices were observed to be more closely aligned than Scalia and Thomas.[96]

The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[97] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[98] 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]

Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note bolded.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Note bolded.

So you are the same M14 Shooter from Coultervakia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Note bolded.

So you are the same M14 Shooter from Coultervakia?

Is that a message board?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that a message board?

It was the yahoo message board associated with the Ann Coulter weekly column.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is that a message board?

It was the yahoo message board associated with the Ann Coulter weekly column.

Ah. Yes, I've been there. Been along time, though.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah. Yes, I've been there. Been along time, though.

I remember you from there.

I'm still giving the feral baboons a hard time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah. Yes, I've been there. Been along time, though.

I remember you from there.

I'm still giving the feral baboons a hard time.

They make our job easy.

 

[BenNatuf]

judges ask questions to test the logic of the party's position.

Psst... that's not the court's responsibility -- that responsibility belongs to opposing council.

I have never participated in a meaningless oral argument.

Or any other sort of oral argument.

there is a reason judges do this. it has nothing to do with pomp and circumstance.

Yes... it has to do with people who have already made their decision on the issue in question trying to steer the proceedings in a certain direction.
Tell me: How can you honestly make a decision in a case before you get to oral arguments?

The idea that SCOTUS justices, who have reached the pinnacle of the legal profession somehow need lowly assed lawyers to guide them through the intracacies of the law is inane... that's why liberal adhere to it. It is adjunct to their philosophy of being "smarter" than everyone else.

 

[BenNatuf]

Give me a break ..I think you're a little too full of yourself and thats evident with the way you post.

who cares what you think?

Good question.
Who cares what YOU think?

Best be careful, in a minute she'll pull out the superlative legal argument that you are a 12 YO and do not have the capacity to understand things she's been trained (like a baby seal evidently) to act on.