Clarence Thomas cries on bench out of fear of Islamo-fascists

[BurtWorm]

One of the dissenters, Justice Clarence Thomas, took the unusual step of reading part of his opinion from the bench, saying the decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm


Has anyone ever been able to explain what makes these guys "new and deadly" when compared to Nazis and nuclear-powered Soviets, for example? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why they are more to be feared and require throwing out the book and starting from scratch (i.e., Bush's brain, which is scratch in more ways than one).

[AndyA]

1. Crocodile tears. Thomas really doesn't give a shit, he's just going

the motions to show his support for the people that put him in that comfy job he isn't qualified for.

[Sailor for Warner]

3. Under what definition is

Clarence Thomas not qualified for the supreme court? I know he does not share our views but I do not see what qualifications he lacks for his job? Maybe I just need to be corrected.

[Greyhound]

5. For Dog's sake, pick up a book.

maybe someone else here has the patience to look it up for you. A cursory glance at his career should be sufficient.

[Sailor for Warner]

23. *looks in book*

Current Members:

John Paul Stevens: 5 years judicial experience before SC
Antonin Scalia: 4 years judicial experience before SC
Anthony Kennedy: 12 years judicial experience before SC
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 13 years judicial experience before SC
David Souder: Less than 1 month judicial experience before SC
Steven Breyer: 14 years judicial experience before SC
Samuel Alito: 16 years judicial experience before SC
John Roberts: 2.5 years judicial experience before SC (Could have been 13, was nominated for Federal bench in 1992 as well)
Clarence Thomas: 1 year judicial experience before SC

Notable Past Members:

Thurgood Marshall: 4 years judicial experience before SC
Sandra Day O'Connor: 0 years judicial experience before SC
William Rhenquist: 0 years judicial experience before SC
Earl Warren: 0 years judicial experience before SC
Warren Burger: 13 years judicial experience before SC
William Howard Taft: 0 years judicial experience before SC
Charles Evan Hughes: 0 years judicial experience before SC

So what I gather is that on the current court we have two "unqualified" persons on the court on of the most conservative and one of the most liberal (Thomas and Souder) and 4 people with what I would assume to be "qualifying" experience, 10+ years, one of the most conservative (Alito), 2 liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg) and one guy in the middle (Kennedy). Then there are a few guys in the middle range of experience, 2-5 years. Of course two justices revered by our side, Marshall and Warren, have either limited or NO judicial experience.

My point being that you never can tell with the supreme court and judicial experience is not necessary for someone to be a good or bad judge. We know the kind of person Thomas is now, but his record is no less remarkable than many other justices who managed to make an impact for progressivism either. But that is just my 2 cents. I have to try and go back to work now :)

[Greyhound]

33. Isn't what they did before being nominated at least as important as

how long they were on the bench? According to what I've read he was a below-average student, that went on to a thoroughly undistinguished career as a political appointee, serving as the "nigger by the door" for the re:puke:s (see we're not racist, lookit how well we treat that Thomas boy).

[BillZBubb]

14. You aren't serious, I hope???!!!!

Google Thomas's resume. Then get back to us.

[Bridget Burke]

15. From an even-handed review of an even-handed biography..

JUDGING THOMAS: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CLARENCE THOMAS, by Ken Foskett. New York: William Morrow/HarperCollins, 2004. Hardcover. 352pp. US$24.95 / CDN$38.95. ISBN: 0060527218. Trade Paper. 368pp. US$14.95 / CDN$20.95. ISBN: 0060527226.

Reviewed by Henry F. Carey, Department of Political Science, Georgia State University

....Thomas was nominated to the US Supreme Court with relatively few qualifications, having served on the Washington, DC, Circuit Court of Appeals for only a year and one-half, despite the fact that President George Herbert Walker Bush called him the “most qualified person in the country for the position.” His famous reaction to the accusations by Hill and others was that he had been subjected to a “high-tech lynching.” Following this and other final statements, he was confirmed by a very close 52-48 vote....

The major task of JUDGING THOMAS is, therefore, left to the reader. Although he has issued few statements from the bench, except for that occasional outburst over racial symbols, which he does not regard as protected speech, Thomas has made his mark on judicial history. This book helps us understand why he sees no inconsistency in his views on natural rights, strict constructionism, textualism, originalism and judicial restraint, in light of his participation in judicially active decisions of the Rehnquist Court, demonstrating that such activism can originate from the right, as well as from the left.

www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/foskett405.htm

Thomas has always opposed Affirmative Action, although he personally benefited from it. He's also not so great on Civil Rights.

His major qualifications? The first African American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, needed to be "replaced" by another African American. (More Affirmative Action?) But Bush the Smarter would only appoint a Conservative Republican. So Thomas didn't have much competition.

[AndyA]

16. Perhaps you could tell me what he's done that makes him qualified?

As the Assistant AG in Missouri, he was fairly mundane, and I can't think of anything spectacular he did in the Department of Education or the EEOC. Am I overlooking something that makes him uniquely qualified to serve on the highest court in this land?

Edit to add: And then there was that pubic hair/Coke deal, and the sexual harrassment of Anita Hill. From what I saw, Anita Hill had more credibility than Thomas.

[Sailor for Warner]

25. Im not saying he was great

I am saying that he is no more or less qualified than some other people that have been on the court over the years. Hes not the most qualified in fact hes one the least, but that has not stopped people on either side. And since when was Bush I restricted to conservatives? He appointed Souter didnt he?

[OzarkDem]

27. Anita Hill would have been a better SC Justice

She's brilliant.

[AndyA]

31. I was very impressed with Anita - she handled herself very well under

an extreme amount of pressure, and I admire that. If I had to choose between Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill for SCOTUS, I think I'd pick Anita Hill over Thomas.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

17. Thomas gave a talked on the campus of the University of Louisville

2-3 years back. He was a total asswipe. Spent 20 minutes talking about nothing. I mean nothing. Ramble along, wouldn't discuss any SC decisions, pandered to Mitch McConnell and then left for lunch.

I will never forget his introduction by a student leader, who happened to be a very articulate, accomplished, nice looking black woman. (Her credentials were listed when she was introduced.) Thomas, upon rising and going to the podium, look this young woman up and down several times and then said, "They make them mighty pretty here in Kentucky." Then something to the effect that she was too pretty to be a lawyer (she was law school bound.) Totally inappropriate and him not RECOGNIZING that it was totally inappropriate pretty much sums up his ability as a Supreme. Thomas reminds me a lot of Chucklenuts - both brainless, clueless boobs.

[OzarkDem]

28. What an a**

Could you imagine Ruth Bader Ginsberg doing that to a male law student?

[displacedtexan]

22. Google is your friend.

It's like having lots and lots of libraries at your
finger tips.

[ljm2002]

24. I had the misfortune of listening to his confirmation hearings...

...saw maybe 75% of the proceedings. And, based on that, the man is unqualified. A pedestrian intellect, dodged answering any controversial questions, obviously coached, obviously did not have the ability to think for himself.

I made this judgment based solely on the hearings -- at the time, I was not as tuned in to conservative vs. more centrist judges (we haven't had a liberal judge on the SC in a long time). And I knew nothing about the Anita Hill circus which was about to transpire -- and when it did, I thought it was total b.s., not because I did not believe her (I did, and I do), but because it was the usual liberal strategy of too little, too late, too ridiculous to bring it up after the fact, after they lost through the normal channels. They should have been pressing their Senators to vote right in the first place. AND, in my mind, there is NO DOUBT how that vote should have gone: any self respecting Senator, who respects the Constitutional authority vested in a Supreme Court justice, should have ixnay'ed this guy just based on the fact that he does not have the intellectual stature for the position.

[KansDem]

26. Well, for starters, look at his confirmation hearings...

When asked about Roe v. Wade:

SENATOR LEAHY: You were in law school at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. Was it discussed while you were there?

THOMAS: The case that I remember being discussed most during law school was Griswold. But I did not spend a lot of time debating all the current cases.

LEAHY: I am sure you are not suggesting that there wasn’t any discussion at any time of Roe v. Wade?

THOMAS: Senator, I cannot remember personally engaging in those discussions.

LEAHY: Have you ever had discussion of Roe v. Wade in the 17 years it has been there?

THOMAS: Only in the most general sense that other individuals express concerns, and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. If you are asking me whether or not I have ever debated the contents of it, that answer to that is no, Senator.

LEAHY: Have you ever stated whether you felt that it was properly decided or not?

THOMAS: I don’t recollect commenting one way or the other. There were, again, debates about it in various places, but I generally did not participate.

Source: Senate Confirmation Hearings Sep 11, 1991

Either he's a liar or his grossly incompetent. Both would render him unfit for the SCOTUS. Now, I'm not much at Supreme Court justicin' but I do have an extensive background in academia, and for someone involved in law to assert that he has never discussed one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in US history is unheard of. I can imagine in my past university life (both as student, graduate student, and teacher) that if I ever admitted to having never discussed an important topic in my discipline, I would be laughed out of my school and told never to come back!

Also, about Bush v. Gore:

I don't think he asked a single question! The Supreme Court was ready to select the POTUS, and I don't believe he asked a single question. I thought I had read the Bush v. Gore transcript a couple of years ago that identified the justices who asked questions and did not see his name. However, the only transcripts I can find now do not identify the justices, so I can't verify my comment. But I offer this:

On Bush v. Gore to decide the 2000 presidential election: "I didn't bring Bush v. Gore. I don't want that to happen again on my watch. They should get enough votes and leave us out of it. We did our best under the circumstances. The only thing I would do differently is write my own opinion so that it would be clear that I still agree with myself." (???)

On why he asks few questions during oral argument: "Everybody else is asking questions. I do not have that many to ask and I can't get a chance to ask them. I also don't like a "Family Feud" atmosphere. Some people have lost their case and some have won on oral argument. But in most cases you can decide on the basis of the briefs. But I wouldn't get rid of oral arguments because they are part of our tradition of getting your day in court."

http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2002_fall/thomas.htm

And there's this assessment:

KAGAN: In fact, it's been said that many of the written and oral arguments that are presented to the high court are almost written for and to her because those going before the court realize how significant of a vote and a voice and how much power .

TOOBIN: That is absolutely true. Many of the briefs are pitched directly to her. And this is, as you probably know, a very active bench. Eight of the nine justices, except Justice Thomas, ask a lot of questions in oral argument.

http://judgingthefuture.net/2005/07/the_moderate.php

I would think Supreme Court Justices should be intellectually curious and ask questions.

So that's it in a nutshell for me. He simply isn't qualified to be Supreme Court Justice. Here, check out this site for some other Thomas summaries:
http://court.ontheissues.org/Court/Clarence_Thomas_Abortion.htm


edited to correct split infinitive

[novalib]

30. You're NOT Serious, Are You????

By almost every single standard imaginable, Clarence Thomas is NOT qualified for the Supreme Court.

He is someone who has a REAL diffficult time keeping his extreme religious views off the Court.

THAT alone should disqualify him!! He is like the "Grand Inquisitor" from the Middle Ages!

He is certainly NOT objective in ANYTHING!!!

He is a KNOWN SEXUAL PREDATOR!

He is a mediocre (at best!) jurist.

[Hugin]

2. A question I've pondered for quite awhile now...

:shrug:

[RoseMead]

4. To a large extent

America needs to move past 9-11. I don't mean any disrespect for those who died or their families. However, 9-11 has been used as a boogyman long enough.

[Yollam]

6. They are not a "new" enemy...

...and there is no such thing as an "Islamo-fascist".

There are Islamic terrorists, and there are Islamic Fundamentalist totalitarian regimes, but they are not fascist. America is much closer to fascism than any Islamic regime. People who coin terms like that are apparently totally ignorant of the meanings of the words they use, or they are propagandist liars.

[BurtWorm]

It's a Hitchenism.

I didn't mean to dignify it by forgetting to put scare quotes around it. I loath the term myself. Just wanted to capture the ludicrousness of Thomas's objection.

[Yollam]

8. DO they still put him on TV a lot?

I remember he was a fixture on MSNBC a few years ago. I only get CNN in Japan now.


Hitchens was a disgusting, drunken BFEE whore.

[Master Mahon]

10. I think he sucumbed

to JimBeam-itis! :+

[BurtWorm]

12. Once in a while they drag him on and prop him up.

He's spent the last few years aiding and abetting David Horowitz by debating lefties about the war and Bushism on college campuses. And he still calls himself a lefty and a socialist!

[mike_c]

7. it's all a complete and utter farce-- the fools are leading the idiots...

...and their sheep.

[Master Mahon]

9. re: "a new and deadly enemy"

For God's sake moron, terrorism has existed since the beginning of time.
Does this guy think what happenned to his ancestors was man just being un-neighborly?
The mafia causes more deaths in this country every year then we lost on 9/11 yet we haven't invaded Italy have we?

[NNN0LHI]

11. Islamo-fascists? Hmmm. Clarence must be a Lou Dobbs fan n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Sorry Clarence, but terrorism has been around since dirt.

[demigoddess]

18. we have to remember that these guys get their history lessons from

old WWII movies. With a little dash of cold war rhetoric. I'm surprised they don't give loyalty oaths to their children each evening over dinner.

[librechik]

19. oh boohoo!! Daddy will spank me for not gettin everybody to go along

with his tyranny. I would hope Clarence gets the hardest spanking of all, if it weren't for a suspicion I have that he would like that way too much.

Comeback when you learn how to be an American instead of a snake, Clarence.

[Sapere aude]

20. Does he really believe that or is he being political?

What matters is the interpretation of the law. Not the political application of it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. What did he do to convey his thoughts, grunt a few times?

[anarch]

29. I think he was talking about the Rainbow Family

"We simply must not hamper our Great Unitary Executive's ability to arrest and detain whomever he decides needs to be locked up, whenever his whim dictates that it needs to be done. Oh, and torture them too."

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. For someone who supposedly is a man of such great faith

He's sure pretty concerned about protecting his own sorry ass.