Clarence Thomas Smacked Down Like Never Before

[kpete]

Clarence Thomas Smacked Down Like Never Before
by Gary Norton

Mon May 17, 2010 at 01:06:16 PM PDT

While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old . . ., the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

.................

There are many noteworthy aspects to this decision that will have a large effect on Eight Amendment cases moving forward. But no less striking is the concurring opinion of Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor that contains the quotation above. It is one of the most biting and sarcastic smackdowns of a Justice one will ever read in a Supreme Court opinion. The concurring opinion is very short and is set forth in full below.

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.

In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS argues that today’s holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in (citations omitted). Given that “evolving standards of decency” have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, (Citation omitted), this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does JUSTICE THOMAS’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commit- ment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete, post, at 8–9, and n. 2.

While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old . . ., the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

The disrespect that Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor showed for Thomas is completely warranted by the absurdity of his opinion. His mind is so lacking in ability that it is unable to comprehend that acceptable standards of conduct and behavior can evolve over time.

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/17/867239/-Clarence-Thomas-Smacked-Down-Like-Never-Before

[GreenStormCloud]

1. But he still has 1 of the 9 votes.

As long as he is one the court, he holds 1/9 of the power.

[defendandprotect]

54. ... and unless impeached, will be there still for many more years .. . !!!

[GreenStormCloud]

98. So true.

A smackdown is nothing to cheer about because it accomplishes exactly nothing. It doesn't remove any of his power. He knows it, and he doesn't care.

[BonnieJW]

102. And you know someone with his limited

intelligence isn't going anywhere. They'll carry him out of the SC.

[Dan]

122. limited intelligence?

Maybe lacking in flexibility, very conservative, wrong headed, different mindset, but would hesitate to say limited intelligence. Would hate to have to debate that man or any jurist on the SCOTUS.

[totodeinhere]

134. Right, he is evil but not stupid.

He graduated from Holy Cross University with an A.B. cum laude, and went on to get his law degree from Yale. I would guess that he is more intelligent than the average DU poster including me, but of course that does not make him right.

[defendandprotect]

161. If Clarence Thomas has any intelligence, it is made mute by

his own self-hatred, IMO --

And his religious fanaticism -- for another reason --

And, like W Bush and other right wingers, seems to have a strong

streak of revenge and "get even" thinking in his nature.

[greyghost]

132. Agreed

[thereismore]

2. Society changes??? Stevens and the two women are clearly being activists here!

:sarcasm:

[WCGreen]

3. Shit, this creaton belongs over in Riyadh,,,,

[demigoddess]

131. cretin, not creaton

or ....

[RKP5637]

4. IMO the supreme court has far too much power... Nine people, nine people

have so much power over millions and millions of Americans. And a life appointment. What a deal.

[X_Digger]

12. Nine people at the top of a pyramid of judiciary.

You could say that the president has too much power, but there's a whole other org chart of folks below him, too.

[RKP5637]

15. Yep, that's true! n/t

[liberation]

41. It is the non-elected part that makes a huuuuuuge difference

Checks and balances don't really work when one branch is appointed for life.

[X_Digger]

48. Sure it does.. congress can craft new laws..

.. or the executive branch can choose to not enforce a particular law, or in a particular fashion.

Would you really want elected federal judges, with a constituency to 'appease'? *shiver*

[csziggy]

72. The 'founding fathers' intended it this to be part of the checks and balances.

They wanted a "flattening" effect of having one branch of government that was not elected and did not change on a regular, predictable schedule. They also established varying lengths of terms for the other branches - that is why Senators, Representatives and the President get elected for different length terms.

The guys that set up the system knew there could be major shifts in political philosophy. By varying lengths of terms for the elected officials they reduced the chances that extremities of views could take over the federal government. Then having justices appointed for life reduced the long term effects of an extreme faction by ensuring that there would be judges at the top who had been appointed by other administrations. Since lifespans are unpredictable, no President can be sure that he will be given the opportunity to appoint even one justice. And unless there was a major disaster or a calculated program of assassination, no one administration will ever be able to replace the entire Supreme Court.

If justices had limited or predictable terms, I fear that political operatives of the Karl Rove sort would plot a course that would ensure that only very conservative justices were in place so they could be used to control the actions of the other two branches.

I may not like many of the justices now on the court and I certainly do not agree with many of their decisions, I can be grateful that the number that Reagan and the two Bushes got to appoint were fairly limited and that they will be gone sooner or later. I'm thrilled that Obama will have appointed two justices and hopeful that he can appoint another during his time in office.

[provis99]

79. the Founding Fathers intended the Supreme Court to be largely irrelevant and powerless.

Who gave the Court its tremendous power, that the Founders hadn't intended? why the Supreme Court, of course, in Marbury v. Madison.

[Goblinmonger]

109. The Federalist Papers

and other recorded discussions of the founders made it clear that they felt it was obvious that the SCOTUS would have and exercise judicial review. I mean, does it make sense to have a supreme court charged with defending the constitution and then make them powerless to rule laws unconstitutional? If that were the case, then congress can pass whatever they wanted.

And since it was such a tremendous power, when was the next time they used it after Marbury?

[berni_mccoy]

117. It's more that the Founding Fathers did not expect the SCOTUS to become extremely Partisan

[wolfgangmo]

121. re: I'm thrilled that Obama will have appointed two justices

Except that Obama is a little to the right of Nixon on most domestic and foreign policy positions.

We are, to paraphase the Bard, fucked.

[DatManFromNawlins]

82. The people who write the laws in this country

Aren't elected either.

[Deep13]

137. I think it works.

The judiciary does not make broad policy. They only rule on very specific points of law. And they depend on the executive for enforcement.

[Solomon]

26. It represents a republic, which was composed of the

the following historical powers: A King (President) The Priesthood (Supreme Court) and the People (Congress broken down into Aristocracy (Senate) and People/Labor (House of Representatives)

[liberation]

42. A Republic by definition can't have a king ;-)

[Rex]

43. Then what would you call the rulers of the Roman Republic?

[Aristus]

75. Consuls. There were two of them. And they served for just one year.

Talk about term-limited executive authority!

In the Roman Republic, one could only serve as Consul, the highest elective office in Rome, after one had served in a number of lower magistracies, including, and especially Praetor. Candidates for Consul were much more likely to be elected if they had served successfully commanding troops in the field, came from one of the "Famous Families" that traced their lineage back to the founding of the Republic in 510 b.c., and were rich enough to put on the customarily cripplingly expensive public games Roman citizens enjoyed.

Once elected as one of two Consuls, a Consul held power only on alternate months, sharing executive privilege with his consular colleague, who held authority during the other months of their single year.

After a year of service, the Consuls would step down in favor of the newly elected pair. Endowed with proconsular power, they would have tremendous moral authority in the Roman Senate, but would be barred from the Consulship for a minimum of ten years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consul

[Rex]

81. What about Julius Caesar?

[liberation]

83. You mean the guy who ENDED the Roman republic?

Where do you think the word DICTATOR comes from?

[Rex]

86. Still listed as a ruler of the Roman Republic.

History books can be a pain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. He was an ELECTED dictator, for a specific term, as was common

practice. He refused to be crowned king (though he did not refuse extending his term). The republic did not end until after he was assassinated and his successor was crowned emperor.

[Rex]

140. Well if an elected dictator isn't a king then he must be an emperor.

And it was actually his grand nephew that was the first emperor of Rome, Augustus. His predecessor was Marc Anthony and I think we all know what happened to him.

[Diclotican]

141. liberation

liberation

The word Dictator is far older than Julius Gaius Cæsar. In fact it was an emergency apointment from the old times, where a single man could if the republic was in any great danger, as it was when the gauls was attacing rome and other historic times, where the really fondation of the Republic was in danger, a single man could comand all sivilian and military power the roman state had.. And in the reality small cases where the roman republic had the use of dictators the result was swift, and clear.. And also one thing was also clear, a Dictator could face criminal charges if he had misused his greater power after 12 mounts.. He had the full power of all roman socity, but when his power ended, he was also responsible for what he had been doing, and could, if find gulty in fact face the full power of the Roman Senate... That be excecuting and treating as he was a criminal... Even the most powerfull Senator could face that, if he had failed as an dictator..

In the end, the office of Dictator was misused, as the whole Roman Republic was crumbling down, and in the last 100 years the roman republic existed it was many who had been damaging the high office of Dictator... Sulla, Marius, and others.. In the end Julius Cæsar one of the last of the republicans who had the office of Dictator, used it to not just bad.. In the last couple of years Cæsar reformed, rebuilded, and made plans for great things to come for the roman republic. But he was killed, as a man who wanted to wresle to mutch power from the Senate, and to end the Republic by crown himself as a king..

In the end, the Republic was crumbling to fast, and the republic was burried, as the new Principiate was making its way.. Octavian, who won in the end ended up building up the first monarcy in ages in Rome. But he was also beared of a greater imperium, and in fact also in theory dictator for life.. But when the sivil wars, who had ravaged most of the antic world for a century or more.. And specially had ruined most of Italy, who was more or less ruined when Octavian got the whole power after Antium in 31 bc...

Diclotican

[axollot]

97. He changed the face of the Roman Republic for the rest of it's days! Excellent call. n/t

[Solomon]

113. Obviously by "king" I'm talking executive power.

Okay. Call it what you want. Even today, England has kings and queens.

[Rex]

142. A constitutional monarchy.

[Hekate]

50. Uhhhh, no.

[defendandprotect]

59. ... and very few comment on the original LACK of true representation for the people . . .

the numbers were too few even at the beginning --

and now even worse --

Can't remember exact figures of where we are now but if you look at British

Parliament, representation . . . I think I worked out some time ago about 1 rep

for every 75,000 people? We'd be something like 1 per 750,000 or more.

Really should look up the numbers -- we're 320 million now -- 500 reps?

Don't recall Britain's numbers . . .

But we're WAY off -- !!

[Enthusiast]

87. Good point. nt

[Goblinmonger]

110. Jacking up the numbers in congress

would turn it into an even bigger clusterfuck.

[Solomon]

114. I'm not talking about actual representation but symbolic.

:eyes:

[RKP5637]

96. Thanks... excellent - historical powers. I have never thought of the SC as Priesthood,

for example, the analogy is excellent!

[Solomon]

115. I'm speaking symbolically of course but a lot of people are taking exception.

:thumbsup: perhaps I should have said "supposed to represent".

[defendandprotect]

56. In a post below, I was commenting that they should be considered an expedient ....

a voice of the people when they are right --

but when they begin to put presidents in the White House and to become

worshippers of punishment -- and legal outlaws -- then it is time to

recognize we have a DUTY to impeach them.

[harun]

100. The alternative is worse, much worse.

The rights I enjoy living in the United States I have because a good judge stood between a bad lawmaker and/or bad law enforcer when they tried to take them away.

[defendandprotect]

162. Good point . . . population has grown but not our representation in USHR . . ..

which was quite skimpy from the beginning --

and not on the Supreme Court - !!

Should be 15, at least!

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:

[SpiralHawk]

6. Clarence Thomas is the Michael Steele of the Supreme Court

Forgive me for using such harsh language, but it is Too Frikkin True to not say it.

[SpiralHawk]

7. Michael Steele is the Clarence Thomas of the Republicon G.O.P. Cabal

Forgive me for using such harsh language, but it is Too Frikkin True to not say it.

[Alcibiades]

57. Michael Steele is waaaay better than Clarence Thomas

In many respects, though, they are dissimilar: Steele talks so much he gets himself into trouble by failing to correctly parrot GOP orthodoxy, whereas Thomas says nothing. Nothing. Really? Is Clarence Thomas even an actual lawyer?

[Octafish]

103. +1

Steele is, eh, Steele.

Clarence Thomas is a traitor and, judging from this opinion, a sociopath.

[Dr.Phool]

36. ClarenceThomas is the Crackhead Bob of the SC.

Michael Steele is Bozo the Clown.

[MadMaddie]

38. No argument here

They both are poor examples of their professions.

[greyghost]

Spot on! eom

[saracat]

8. Good for them! Too bad we can't just keep them all!

Stephens has probably been wanting to do this since forever!

[libodem]

9. Clarence

is one pubic hair short of a coke can. What a closed and tiny mind he has, to remain so unenlightened, and so proud of it.

[defendandprotect]

60. Clarence is a sexual pervert . . . and presumably blackmailable by the right ....

should he ever think of straying --

As Sen. Paul Simon said . . . unbelievably . . . "had Congress known the truth about

Thomas" he would not have been confirmed.

Liked Simon, but this was kind of an alibi, as well.

They could have known -- Biden really is the one who put Clarence Thomas on the court.

And, he did it by betraying Prof. Anita Hills' legal team --

There were something like a dozen former EEOC women ready to come forward to tell of

Thomas' sexual advances/perversions/comments to women at the EEOC -- his placement there

evidently being a joke by Poppy Bush! They were prominent women from the EEOC who would

relate what they had seen and heard -- and experienced.

Much attention was given to Angela Wright -- who came forward immediately -- she was made

into Mary Magdalene!!

Anyway, Biden put some male witness on who testified trying to turn Prof. Hill into an

sexual aggressor until about 4am -- and then Biden did not call any of the witnesses he

had promised to call -- all of them ready, waiting and able!! One willing to leave her

hospital bed to testify against Thomas -- she was a speechwriter at the EEOC.

In the end, the male witness couldn't recall if Prof. Hill had telephoned him or whether

he had telephoned her!

So -- Simon was obviously trying to tell us something while not really saying anything ...

except to make clear that Thomas was unfit in every way for the SC.

Keep in mind that Clarence Thomas' personal friends testified and said he was . . .

"a lover of hard core pornography" -- that's the stand in a booth kind and ejaculate.

Other's of his friends heard the comment "drink from my ass thru a straw" and said that

"that sounds like Clarence!" --

Amazing how many people were willing to tell the truth and how desperately a male Congress

didn't want to hear it !!

One of Thomas' huge supporters was a Sen. Danforth -- who had legal business before Thomas

at some point in one of the courts.

He told Thomas during the hearings that he believed him -- BUT THAT EVEN IF THOMAS HAD DONE

ALL THAT PROF. HILL WAS SAYING HE HAD DONE, HE'D STILL SUPPORT HIM!!

This was Sen. Danforth -- can't remember his first name . . .

May have had connections to Ralston company?

[disndat]

99. Danforth is a member of some Christan

religious organization, maybe Episcopalian. He did say sometime later, that he regretted his support of Thomas. The Repug RW revival is some kind of white male backlash to Civil Rights and Womens lib. That era may be passing with the election of Obama and the horrible corruption of its leaders, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the ilk. We can only hope.

[dotymed]

108. I have no proof, but Episcopalian sounds pretty unrealistic.

They are a pretty liberal religion (just elected its' second openly gay priest). They are very inclusive, but a neo-con like Thomas would not be very accepted as an Episcopalian. We are a splinter group from the Catholic Church ( we are the church of England) that was thrown out of England by Henry VIII. Our Priests marry and we don't mind alcohol, we embrace the poor and support labor. Just sayin'

[defendandprotect]

150. Evidently Danforth no longer needs Thomas . . .

and would know enough about the whole Thomas scandal to keep

Thomas from turning on him -- ???


However, Danforth also profited somehow from the relationship with Thomas . . .

I think it was prior to the nomination -- evidently some legal case where

Thomas ruled in favor of Danforth's interests . . .

Unfortunately, I don't remember any of the details of that at this point.


Danforth is a member of some Christan
religious organization, maybe Episcopalian. He did say sometime later, that he regretted his support of Thomas. The Repug RW revival is some kind of white male backlash to Civil Rights and Womens lib. That era may be passing with the election of Obama and the horrible corruption of its leaders, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the ilk. We can only hope.

When a nation protects and supports human rights -- gender equality -- it is harder for the

right wing elites to exploit -- and capitalism is based on exploitation.

Not only of nature and natural resources and animal-life --

but also exploitation of humans according to various myths of inferiority!


That ERA will never pass -- it's built into patriarchal concepts and the continuing war on

nature and women. Right wing never gives up!

[axollot]

105. Just to clarify here - While Thomas is undeniably a douchebag -

to say and I'll quote you - ""a lover of hard core pornography" -- that's the stand in a booth kind and ejaculate." should be a reason for someone to NOT be appointed to SC would be silly.

Many normal people love "hard core porn" and while I like some porn myself, I'm just saying it's the 21st century, liking porn **without** being a creepy sexual predator i.e. Thomas is ok in this day and age.

Cheers
Sandy

[noiretextatique]

124. thomas's problem is that he shared his love of porn at work

with co-workers who weren't interested. that makes him stupid in addition to creepy.

[defendandprotect]

153. Thomas is obviously addicted to and obsessed with porn . . .

and may be the basis for his disrespect for women --

ever AA women like Prof. Anita Hill?

[defendandprotect]

151. dupe

THAT was the atmosphere surround the porn he busied himself with regularly --

His college friends testified to that --





Meanwhile, as for porn, IMO, it is organized propaganda vs women --

as hard to respond to as "White Only" drinking fountains in the South long ago --

and Nazi propaganda suggesting that Jews were like "rats running in the gutters."

It is organized, it is anti-female -- it is pro-domination themes -- and often violent.

And is a detriment to the full equality of females in America.

[defendandprotect]

152. I'm reciting what the friends/culture said of it at the time ... at YALE College . . .

His college friends testified to that --

And they affirmed that some very gross attributed to Thomas -- "drink from my ass with a straw" --

for instance . . . "Sounded very much like Clarence."


---

Meanwhile, as for porn, IMO, it is organized propaganda vs women --

as hard to respond to as "White Only" drinking fountains in the South long ago --

and Nazi propaganda suggesting that Jews were like "rats running in the gutters."

It is organized, it is anti-female -- it is pro-domination themes -- and often violent.

And is a detriment to the full equality of females in America.

[newspeak]

112. I still have the video tape of the Anita Hill-Thomas hearing

The ignorance it burns. You should hear some of Hatch's comments during the hearing. After his sexual comments during the hearing and him publicly supporting Ahhhhnold by stating that Ahhhnold's sexual transgressions were a while ago-like boys will be boys. When more than one allegation against Ahhnold, was that he assaulted women and some of those assaults were fairly recent.

After listening to the video, it makes me wonder about "the good old boy" network in Congress. That was year's ago, and it seems nothing has changed. I have a lot more respect for Anita Hill and those brave women who were willing to testify, than some perverted members of our congress.

[noiretextatique]

125. i still remember that hearing...it was and is sickening

that horrible little worm hatch and that asshole specter, among others :grr: ms. hill and the other woman clearly had far more integrity in their little fingers than that slimy puppet thomas. his appointment was a slap in the face to the legacy of thurgood marshall. all the bushess are mean, petty jackasses.

[defendandprotect]

155. Completely agree with all of your post . . ..

Hoping Specter finally loses tonight -- for many reasons from JFK to Prof. Hill --

Agree with you on the "integrity" and your post made me wonder what the reaction would

be today if the entire hearing was shown on PBS with no commercials?

I think most people would be shocked!!

Unfortunately, many Americans didn't get to see all of what happened at the time --

Great book on this is .... "Strange Justice" -- think Prof. Hill does the foreword but

generally by the lawyers involved who rip Biden apart and rightly so!

May be at your library?



Loved Thurgood Marshall -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

154. Thank you for that info . . .

I've always hoped that PBS, for instance, would rerun the entire hearings --

but will never happen, of course.

Have you ever thought of putting some of that on YOUTUBE?

Agree with you re Orrin Hatch -- another religious fanatic cutthroat Repug --

And, especially re Arnold -- a Nazi in the wings IMO!

Sadly, it was Biden who betrayed Prof. Anita Hill's lawyers and didn't permit

the witnesses against Thomas to be seen or heard!

Angela Wright, one of the first to come forward, was villified as a whore, as I recall it!

Yes -- Congress is the biggest Old Boys Club -- !!



PS: Arlen Specter didn't do too badly either in joining Hatch in despicable comments and

suggestions re Prof. Hill -- nor Simpson -- Alan Simpson, think his name was.

Many of them and neither Biden nor Leahy stopped them!

[Uncle Joe]

10. It's an outstanding smack-down but it's also tragic that such an elementary rebuttal would be

necessary against an active Supreme Court Justice at any time, much less during 21st century.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

[upi402]

11. get this dolt a history book and a damn mirror

WTF is Clarence Thomas thinking?

I'm still hoping there really IS a hell for these corporatist whores.

[jgraz]

16. A mirror? What makes you think he has a reflection?

:evilgrin:

[upi402]

19. lol

you seriously made me laugh. thanks!
:fistbump:

[Enthusiast]

88. LOL!

[charlie]

13. They're gonna make him pop his cork

and cause the first spree killing/hostage situation in court history. The dude is fuelled on pure resentment, been doing a slow burn for decades.

[patrice]

33. bingo. . . There's something Wrong with that guy!

[defendandprotect]

61. There's everything wrong with that guy . . . !!

[jgraz]

14. Hey Clarence: we also frown on porn-addicted, sexually harassing toadies these days.

Just thought you should know...

[joeybee12]

17. Aw, give him a break...it's not like Thomas actually WROTE his dissent...

...he just spewed some garbage and his clerks wrote it...Thomas isn't smart enough to write an opinion, no matter how abhorrent.

[disndat]

101. John Yoo, among Thomases law clerks. nt.

[defendandprotect]

156. "Torturing the law" for Thomas . . . ???

:)

[X_Digger]

18. k&r

When talking judicial smack downs, here's a couple more that are fairly notorious-

Olmstead v. United States

"The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. . . . Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government by means more effective than stretching upon the rack to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.

"The progress of science, in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. . . ."

Baker v Carr

A hypothetical claim resting on abstract assumptions is now for the first time made the basis for affording illusory relief for a particular evil even though it foreshadows deeper and more pervasive difficulties in consequence. The claim is hypothetical, and the assumptions are abstract, because the Court does not vouchsafe the lower courts -- state and federal -- guidelines for formulating specific, definite, wholly unprecedented remedies for the inevitable litigations that today's umbrageous disposition is bound to stimulate in connection with politically motivated reapportionments in so many States.

In such a setting, to promulgate jurisdiction in the abstract is meaningless. It is as devoid of reality as "a brooding omnipresence in the sky," for it conveys no intimation what relief, if any, a District Court is capable of affording that would not invite legislatures to play ducks and drakes with the judiciary. For this Court to direct the District Court to enforce a claim to which the Court has over the years consistently found itself required to deny legal enforcement and, at the same time, to find it necessary to withhold any guidance to the lower court how to enforce this turnabout, new legal claim, manifests an odd -- indeed an esoteric -- conception of judicial propriety. One of the Court's supporting opinions, as elucidated by commentary, unwittingly affords a disheartening preview of the mathematical quagmire (apart from divers judicially inappropriate and elusive determinants) into which this Court today catapults the lower courts of the country without so much as adumbrating the basis for a legal calculus as a means of extrication. Even assuming the indispensable intellectual disinterestedness on the part of judges in such matters, they do not have accepted legal standards or criteria or even reliable analogies to draw upon for making judicial judgments. To charge courts with the task of accommodating the incommensurable factors of policy that underlie these mathematical puzzles is to attribute, however flatteringly, omnicompetence to judges. The Framers of the Constitution persistently rejected a proposal that embodied this assumption, and Thomas Jefferson never entertained it.

[rasputin1952]

20. I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Thomas is stupid, lazy and arrogant. He knows nothing of jurisprudence, if the law looked through his glasses, by his being black, he'd be sharecropping down South. He lives in a world devoid of reality, a world where he would be seen as a second class citizen, just barely a step above a slave. His views are so outdated, and so ignorant, it is amazing he can see things so openly stupid as somehow "viable".

I think of some of the great minds that have been on the UUSC, and I wonder how this idiot, (and bush I stated he was, "the most qualified"), survived HS, much less college and Law School.

Hey Clarence...what color is the sky in your world?

[MadMaddie]

39. rasputin1952 you have nailed Thomas!

Thomas is just a dude in a robe taking up space on the court. He has no value, no independent thoughts and frankly he is just lazy.

[rasputin1952]

44. I've read some of his opinions...

not only are they the shortest of any USSC Justice, they are written as if in a daze, or perhaps, it's just that stupidity slogging through the motions.

I don't like Scalia by a long shot, but at least he is intelligent...Thomas is a bona fide moron.

Lazy is apparent when he usually nods off during oral arguments in the Court...incredibly, the relatively few times this dullard actually has to hear a case, he nods off. How this slug of a human being ever made it is beyond my comprehension. Instead of a Chair on the Court, they should replace Thomas' w/a Futon, so he can get proper sleep while listening to an argument.

[defendandprotect]

62. Clarence made it for two reasons . . . he was AA and blackmailable . . .

Bush put him in as the anti-EEOC at the EEOC . . . a joke --

and then carried the joke over to the SC because he need a "black" . . .

and this was the insulting replacement for Thurgood Marshall!!


As Marshall was retiring and the press was asking him if they thought

Poppy Bush would consider it a "black" seat and honor that . . .

Thurgood cautioned and educated us all with this comment:

"It's not the color of a snake which matters --

it's whether or not the snake bites!"


And that bit of wisdom would be true of any appointee of any color or gender.

[rhett o rick]

123. If he is "blackmailable" by one side, isn't he "blackmailable" by the other side as well? nm

[defendandprotect]

149. Not necessarily when left couldn't present its evidence because Biden betrayed them ...

and when information like video rentals weren't permitted --

His own friends testified that he was "a lover of hard core pornography" -- !!

That's the really crude kind -- stand in a booth and ejaculate --

One of the references was to a regular comment by Thomas --

i.e., "drink from my ass thru a straw" --

His friends testified that . . . "Yes, that sounds like Clarence" --

!!

Sen. Paul Simon said later, had the Congress known before the vote what they

knew later, Thomas would not have been confirmed.

Not entirely believable because much info was out there --

No -- don't think left has all the info the right has on Thomas --

[rhett o rick]

158. So you are saying essentially that the left are idiots. They cant figure out what the right can.

Your post implied that the right wanted Thomas seated because they, the right, could blackmail him into following their agenda. If the left knows this, and I dont think it is a secret, why dont they blackmail him? Or expose (pun not intended but accepted) his ass.

[defendandprotect]

160. You're suggesting that the left has the evidence . . .

and only YOU are suggesting that the left are "idiots" . . .

Calm down --

If you're truly interested in how this gets done reflect upon J. Edgar Hoover --

who himself was blackmailed --

CIA had a photo of him -- allegedly -- commiting oral sex upon his beau . . .

what was his name? Began with a C and T --

Clyde Tolson . . . ?

Think the Mafia originally had the photo -- and passed it on to CIA --

That story is around in a few places --

as tales of "J. Edgar MARY Hoover" have come out in past years.

So -- what the right had on Thomas would be instantly condemmming --

and probably something not available to the left.

But you're asking about the left --

Why didn't they impeach Bush?

Why didn't they solve the JFK coup?

Why didn't they throw Nixon in jail?

Why are they not prosecuting the CEOs for corporate crime?

On and on -- Iran Contra, October Surprise -- S&L theft and embezzlements --


Some will say that it is truly because the left doesn't have the power to bring

these truths forward.

That may quite sadly be the case!




I was always disappointed that Prof. Anita Hill didn't get a tape recording of Thomas

at EEOC acting out his obsession with porn in her presence.

Kept hoping she might have -- but doesn't look like it??

[rhett o rick]

164. Damn you. You are trying to push reality on me. I am in denial for a good reason.

"Some will say that it is truly because the left doesn't have the power to bring these truths forward.

That may quite sadly be the case!"

Yes I know, I just dont want to know.

NGU

[defendandprotect]

166. Understand . . . I reacted the same way . . .

and the person who tossed that out at the time to me was -- on a website --

Fletcher Prouty website -- from someone who worked with him.

Sad -- but ultimately a great deal of truth in that statement, unfortunately.

[MadMaddie]

73. I bet if we did a comparison of his vote record they would

mirror Scalia to the T.

[rasputin1952]

90. A LOT shrorter...

and written in crayon...:hi:

[MadMaddie]

165. He..he..maybe chalk...

:hi:

[goclark]

107. He is a puppet on a string held by

his Masters Bush.

[RayStar]

118. Excellent post

Whatever boss anton tells clarence to do he does!

[Enthusiast]

89. +1 for rasputin1952's excellent post! nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

21. Thomas has no knowledge of the human condition, empathy, justice, decency...

[Chulanowa]

46. We already knew he was a Republican, though

[Enthusiast]

91. LOL!

[mwb970]

95. Empathy! You want him to be like Hitler?

Glenn Beck says that empathy is every bit as evil as social justice. Sieg heil!

[axollot]

104. Poor Beck and his Nazi Tourettes - must be a bitch to live through ;) n/t

[SalmonChantedEvening]

22. K&R n/t

[mnhtnbb]

23. If Thomas doesn't like the concept of evolving law, then maybe he'd like to go back

to being 3/5 of a person under the original Constitution.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. +1

One would think that an African-american would appreciate a constitution which evolves to suit contemporary society.

[goclark]

34. I'm African American so it's better for me to say this

than others ~ He does not think he is Black,his mirror sees a White Man.
He has been bought and paid for by the Teabag crowd ( his wife being a member) and the Bush Crime Family.:puke:

[political_Dem]

35. +10000 Seconded by another Black American.

That's why I call him Benedict Thomas. ;)

[MadMaddie]

40. goclark I am also African American and I support your statement.

Thomas is the houseboy of the Republican party and he covets his statused position so he can serve the powers that be. What an embarrassment!!

[goclark]

106. Our Ancestors would not be pleased with "Lil Clarence

:evil:

[goclark]

167. Can we disown him?

:puke:

[FailureToCommunicate]

52. And the Monsanto Mafia also!

[Robeson]

58. Basically, you nailed it..

[defendandprotect]

64. His wife is further right than "Atilla the Hunt" . . . and both religious fanatics . . .

interesting for a sexual pervert, eh?




PS: Also well remember another African American judge speaking about Thomas and

calling him a "Judas" to his own people. THAT judge was someone so exceptional that

it was heartbreaking to know he'd never be on the SC. This is all political -

What a shame!!

[olegramps]

116. Sexual perverts and religious fanatics share much in common.

[defendandprotect]

148. Yes, indeed . . . !!! Sad to say, but very true -- !! Historically and currently!!

[noiretextatique]

144. we used to call people like thomas sellouts

the man is brimming with self-loathing and wants to be white so bad he sold whatever semblance of a soul he had a long time ago. as my cousin says, he's the kind of black man that makes rw white people very comfortable. he is truly the embodiment of all their racist fantasies, and he is forever beholden to the bush crime family and their rw friends. nothing lower on the planet than a sellout like thomas :puke:

[MindandSoul]

47. Excellent point!

[SnakeEyes]

63. That's not an example of evolving law

And it helps their argument too since it was changed via constitutional amendment which is how they argue is the only way the Constitution should be changed; that it's why the framers put the amendment process in there in the first place because otherwise the document isn't supposed to change.

[hyphenate]

78. He wouldn't likely have been

allowed NEAR the court if he was sent back through time. Unless he were a defendant. In the south, his masters could simply have killed him and not thought too much of it.

[LarryNM]

24. Cruelty Begets Cruelty

All those lessons learned from the abuse on the farms and the schools, and now he is giving back.

[Puzzler]

25. If Thomas doesn't like "evolving" laws, then maybe we should turn the legal clock back ...

... a couple of hundred years to see how those old laws would apply to him.

[defendandprotect]

65. Oh . . wow !! A lesson as Abraham Lincoln would have thought of teaching it . . .

Remember reading that Lincoln was being pushed somehow to hang some young

soldier for something. And, Lincoln said, I would do it if I could see any

way that it would teach him a lesson. Unfortunately, he'd be dead and not

up to learning any lesson!

Something like that!!

Also . . . wasn't that the theme of one of the long ago plays?

A musical in fact! And I think later they made a movie of it? A white mayor

is turned "black" --

[MurrayDelph]

136. Finian's Rainbow

did they ever tell how things in Glocca Morra actually were?

[defendandprotect]

147. Hi -- thank you . . . yes! Finian's Rainbow!!

:)

[grantcart]

27. Now if only President Obama would appoint justices like Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor!!

[hyphenate]

80. Umm..Sotomayor WAS appointed by Obama... eom

[grantcart]

120. No that can't be true because at DU I have read hundreds of threads that

Obama only appoints DLC types who are afraid to speak strongly on other matters.

Somebody has to be mistaken.

[goclark]

163. Exactly!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

28. Thurgood Marshall told Clarence Thomas,

"You are not fit to SHINE MY SHOES".

:yourock: Thurgood!!!!

[elleng]

32. ???

[goclark]

51. Thurgood rocked!

[defendandprotect]

66. Did he really? I never heard that--!!

When Thurgood was retiring press kept asking him whether he thought

Poppy Bush would treat his seat as a "black" seat . . .

Thurgood gave us all a lesson in reality . . . he said:

"It's not the color of a snake which is important --

it's whether or not it bites that is important -- "



!!!


:)

[Patsy Stone]

29. Boo Yaa!

I didn't know he could think for himself. But it seems like Scalia thought his opinion was doubleplus right, so that had to make him feel ten feet tall.

:puke:

ed: correction.

[msanthrope]

31. I can't wait until Thurgood marshall's former clerk joins the court....n/t

[Hekate]

49. Sweeeeet

Oh Goddess I am looking forward to having Elena Kagen join the Court.

In SO many ways.

:bounce:

Hekate

[cornermouse]

37. Okay. Thomas has now publicly admitted he's immoral and/or insane.

[katzenjammers]

45. Thomas is hardly a genius but here, he comports with contemporary 'Christian' tenets:

and those of virtually all monotheistic religions that ascribe some truth to their sacred writings which describe a jealous deity that delights in torturing humans for shits and giggles if not for any rational reason. That interpretation puts him squarely in the middle of millions of delusional humans who are perfectly willing to prosecute and persecute anyone including children who fail to meet their standards of holiness. The witch hunts never really ended...they just got the imprimatur of politically correct and powerful sects. Our ruling class (the politicians) know how to claim ownership of various flavors of these sects for their electoral benefit and the rubes will vote for whichever of them blab the proper platitudes.

[defendandprotect]

53. Justice Clarence Thomas is a pervert -- and not only sexually . . .

"Beware of those with a strong urge to punish" --


Meanwhile, our right wing Supreme Court and its crimes should be an embarrassment to

our nation -- it's been an embarrassment to us throughout the world.

Capital punishment had been overturned -- right wing justices also renewed it!


We have to keep in mind that the Supreme Court is an expedient -- but when it no longer

speaks for the people and the common good -- and with common sense -- then it should be

dismissed.

[SpartanDem]

55. It says a lot that Sotomayor joined in this dissent

of course, those bashing Kagan are the same who said Sotomayer was a (insert insult) and would move the court to the right.

[happygoluckytoyou]

67. CLEARLY...thomas is the type of black man that makes black people ask "why does he have to be black"

[lonestarnot]

69. His color has nothing to do with the issue!

:eyes: A fucker is a fucker no matter the color of his/her skin.

[noiretextatique]

126. actually, his color has everything to do with the issue

he was chosen because of his color. he is the very embodiment of tokenism.

President Bush said that Thomas was the "best qualified at this time."<31> The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Thomas "qualified" by a vote of 13 to 2.<38> Reagan nominee Robert Bork received twice as many "not qualified" votes as Thomas.<39> However, the ABA rating of Thomas was the least favorable of any confirmed Supreme Court nominee dating back to the Eisenhower administration (most nominees receive unanimous "well qualified" evaluations).<38> Thomas had never argued a case in the high courts, though others have also been appointed without Supreme Court oral argument experience,<40> and prior to Thomas, forty Supreme Court justices had been appointed without any prior judicial service (though none have since).<41> Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of consequence, and had been a judge for only a year.<40>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Supreme_Court_nomination_and_confirmation

[political_Dem]

130. +10000 And he was a poor candidate to fill the place of Thurgood Marshall.

It was as if Benedict Thomas was asleep during the height of the Civil Rights Era.

It makes one wonder.

Did Thomas like being under Jim Crow law? Did he ignore how Marshall and others did in terms of overturning such discriminatory laws in order for all people to be integrated into American society?

It makes no sense that he would be so opposed to justice and mercy in terms of the law being fair.

Instead he sold out to the highest bidder and became the Bush family's lawn jockey. x(

[11 Bravo]

143. You're damned right! If this non-entity was white, he'd be a Walmart assistant manager.

[lonestarnot]

145. You are addressing his appointment, I was looking at his ignorant opinion.

So we miscommunicated. :hi:

[noiretextatique]

168. righto

:hi:

[goclark]

77. Now I ask, why does a fool and a tool like that have to be Black

Thurgood Marshall must be rolling over in his grave!

The Bush Crime Family marches on.

I still remember those Hearings and Ms. Hill telling nothing but the truth -- and the Bush Crime Family held the day. :puke:

[noiretextatique]

127. thomas is the kind of black guy who marries a white woman

then tries to creep with the sistas, like anita hill and the other black woman the pervert hit on. a despicable sellout of the worst kind :puke:

[lonestarnot]

68. Can anyone really believe this fucker sits on the highest Court in our land?

Yes. I can believe it. :puke:

[Cha]

70. And, he's married to a teabagger.

[noiretextatique]

128. she's a prop

it's telling that he married her, but hit on attractive black women on the side.

[Romulox]

71. Thomas graduated Yale Law. That's supposed to PROVE he's smart.

Isn't it? :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

74. Too bad they don't arrest the scumbag for grand larceny and execute the sob.

[hyphenate]

76. Oh, I think his mind is just going back

about 20 years ago, before society bitch-slapped him for sexual harassment. Just think of all those nubile law clerks he can't touch now because it's now against the law.

[Hannah Bell]

84. BFD. The majority upheld life imprisonment w/o parole for juvenile murderers -- a regression.

So a 7-year-old murderer could theoretically be held for life, too, with the sanction of the "liberal" justices.

as the liberals pile on the easy target of thomas & ignore the "mainstreaming" of juvenile offenders into the adult justice system over the last 40 years, supported by the "liberal" supreme court.

"liberal" roberts in his supporting but separate opinion:

Justice Roberts argued in a separate opinion against what he considered the overly broad scope of the ruling. While noting that the particular circumstances surrounding Terrance Graham’s case did not justify a life-without-parole sentence, he wrote that “there is no need for the Court to decide whether that same sentence would be constitutional if imposed for other more heinous nonhomicide crimes.”

Roberts added, “This means that there is nothing *inherently* unconstitutional about imposing sentences of life without parole on juvenile offenders; rather, the constitutionality of such sentences depends on the particular crimes for which they are imposed.” (Emphasis in the original.)

[rasputin1952]

92. Roberts is not known as an empathetic figure...

But there is also a difference in the crimes.

Murder far outweighs theft. Many of those being held are in for relatively "minor" crimes have life sentences. They will be affected by this decision. The # of "7 year old's" that commit murder is minuscule, and while I don't believe minors, (especially 7 year old's), should face Life w/o Parole, murder takes it over the top as far as crimes go.

The Justice system needs to be overhauled anyway. Some murderers get out after a few years, while others are kept for life; some pot smokers are fined in some states, and a few states have lengthy prison sentences for the same "crime". Odd how a crack dealer can get 5 years, and someone with a couple of joints can get 20 depending on the jurisdiction and the demeanor of the court involved.

[Mojeoux]

85. This is a tiny WIN!

yea!
I'll take it!:loveya:

[Lilyeye]

93. This man makes me sick!

[mwb970]

94. (* Sigh *) Yet another stupid, worthless conservative.

How will we ever get out from under these awful people? There are so damn many of them!

[femrap]

119. Thomas

is an evil Opus Dei nut.

May he find many hairs in his soda cans! May he get a big, bad hair ball entwined to his innards.

I really don't like this dude.

[crim son]

129. This is a remarkably clear example of what it means to be a republican.

Educational attainment has nothing to do with it, nor does compassion or insight; it's a peculiar dysfunction of the mind that results in conservatism as we know it today.

[defendandprotect]

157. "Beware of those with a strong urge to punish" . . . !!

don't know who said it --

but often think of that warning --

[Liberal_in_LA]

133. kick

[Pirate Smile]

135. It has been a while but something of his that I read during law school really stuck with me. He is

worse then Scalia. His concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" seems medieval. This isn't the first time that a case has made that point clear.

[OneBlueSky]

138. just curious . . . did they ever find that pubic hair from Clarence's Coke? . . . n/t

.

[defendandprotect]

159. Think it turned out to be Cheney's . . . ???

[beyurslf]

139. Our Founders may have been good men with grand intentions. But it is plain stupid to think

that we should only look to what they meant at that time by their writings. Justice Thomas should remember that the men he quotes from those original documents would have owned him had he lived in their day. Our values change. Our country changes. We just let our founding documents do the same.

[Ed Barrow]

146. bump