Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No Argument: (Clarence) Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:17 PM
Original message
No Argument: (Clarence) Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. <...> New York Times

maybe he's just keeping close to the axiom that it's to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and be recognized as a fucking criminal with a teabagger wife. oh, right. We already know that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why bother to speak or ask questions?
All Thomas does is copy from Scalia when he does his ruling anyway. Anything else would just be a waste of effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. He's just there to vote witht the Scalia/Roberts/Alito bloc; no coherent thought necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's an intellectual lightweight
Probably only qualified to be Justice of the Peace in some small county somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is there any video of him speaking coherently, or otherwise, recently?
It occurred to me his wifes more visible activism might be a sign he's losing his grip. If he's no longer able to control her could it be a sign he's having some problems? Wouldn't it be a shame for him to be suffering from Alzheimer's or something similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Excuse me?
Ok, I detest the man. I detest his spouse. They are both pigs! I could go on.

But to suggest that he is losing his faculties because he is "no longer able to control" his wife is just plain sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's not that I would like to see anyone "control" their wife. It's
the way I think someone like him looks at it, and would do if he could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. "...no longer able to control her?" Got sexism? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Like I told the other person that got in me for that. That's the
way I would expect him to look at it, and try to do. Not the way I would ever look at things. So, his wife is causing him a little trouble these days. I would bet he's not happy about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. The supreme court is directly responsible for so many of our problems.
Thomas is totally unqualified. He's just a right-wing stooge.

He should be facing impeachment right now for his tax problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nicely evaluated, tishaLA.
I don't say this lightly, I am anti violence, I walk out or cover my eyes should I get caught unawares seeing any in a movie, or I step in and stop it in real life if possible.
But Clarence Thomas: I'd like to slap the sh*& out of him all by myself, with my bare hands, and I'd win.
That's been my wish since I watched every minute of the hearings about Anita Hill.

He is a disgrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm shocked.
And no one has questioned his behavior - until now (assuming it is now being questioned)? WTF? This needs to get out there. I can't think of anything that would have a bigger impact than replacing one of right wing supremes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't know what's scarier: that he doesn't have a mind of his own or that would use one if he had
one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. He's always been like this. Even during the oral arguments in Bush v. Gore he didn't speak.
It's clear he was not cut out for the job, and Bush Sr. just nominated him as a "token" to replace Thurgood Marshall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peregrine Took Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. We can thank Biden, Spector, Kennedy and others for putting him there.
Cowardly Democrats too timid to challenge him lest they be accused of racism. They treated Anita Hill like dirt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Political polarization of the COURT has resulted in this Insane SHIT to
subvert our nations well being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC