I’m sure this is just a mark of what a serious person Clarence Thomas is:
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.
General Stuck
Why does he need to talk. Every case has already been decided in that belfry of a brain, and the bats are busy how to explain Die Liberal Die is language suitable for polite society.
His pappy threw him out of the house when he was a kid because he said he wanted to be a lawyer instead of a doctor, or something, and somebody has to pay for that. It won’t be his daddy, cause Clarence thinks he was a fine figure of a father that made him what he is. And he is right. A deeply conflicted and disturbed man, who would likely rather be in anyone elses skin but his own.
Dream On
Dear dear.
Yutsano
If anyone had bothered to pay attention during his confirmation hearings they would have realized this would Happen. Thomas had never produced a single important ruling or judicial opinion before his nomination, why should he be bothered to do so now?
BTW DougJ, it’s rather uncivil of you to bait one of our resident trolls like this. I think I might just lurve you for it.
Sophist
Wait, I’m confused. Shouldn’t Thomas be the one doing all the talking while Scalia conspicuously drinks a glass of water?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I think it was an NYT Mag. profile a few years back, a friend of CT’s said he hates the job and only stays on the court because he doesn’t want to give his enemies, real and perceived, the satisfaction. And now I’m sure his crazy bitter drunken wife is egging him on to wait out the evil Kenyan.
What a creepy little man he is. Ol’ GHWB has a lot to answer for to…. somebody.
cmorenc
If he would only also stop writing opinions, and in fact also stop voting on cases, I’d be fine with him not EVER speaking during oral argument.
freelancer
You know what I want, if I’m ever accused of a crime? An incurious judge.
To have that at the highest level of our courts, deciding the most pivotal cases that have global consequences is nothing short of terrifying for our nation.
KG
I really don’t get this complaint. He doesn’t ask a lot of questions. Neither did William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, or Harry Blackman. He lets the attorneys make their arguments, he lets his colleagues ask questions (and believes that they ask too many questions). The attorneys write briefs that are submitted to the Court, several other non-parties submit briefs as well, then the attorneys make oral arguments. Thomas is of the opinion (and in many cases, this is very true) that the questioning by other Justices is little more than showboating.
If you want to criticize his jurisprudence, that’s fine. But why the obsession with whether or not he asks any questions?
junebug
It’s hard being a token. Just ask Colin Powel or Condi Rice. It’s far harder being a token married to a a wingnut and just wanting to get in your Winnobego and visit camp grounds.
The tokens selling themselves these days should look to Clarence as a prime example. Some might say that Thomas is just being lazy, having a job for life and all.
Funny how all of these values keep turning on a brother.
JasonF
I can’t stand Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence, but I think the complaint about his not speaking at argument is overblown. By the time you get to oral argument, there have already been dozens of pages of briefs written, plus the opinions of the lower courts. And that’s where the real argument gets developed. Oral argument is kind of a waste. You get some lawyer up there and sure, in most cases he’s a good lawyer who’s spent a lot of time preparing, but at the end of the day, he’s just some schmuck trying to tap dance and think on his feet for half an hour as the justices pelt him with questions. If he can’t come up with an answer off the top of his head for why the proposed exercise of power is consistent with the principles laid down in the case of U.S. v. Whatever, I’m not sure if that means anything in the grand scheme of things. Also, the justices who do talk tend to use oral arguments as a chance to talk at each other rather than to develop an understanding of the issues.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
Spending warm Summer days indoors
Writing frightening verse
To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg
Adam Hyland
I’ve never understood this complaint. He doesn’t feel questions are valuable or interesting for justices.
Let’s imagine a test of this complaint. Can anyone think of a supreme court case which turned on admissions made by a lawyer when questioned by either judge? Obviously it would be nearly impossible to provide this as judges do not declare their opinions on cases before they are heard (well, most judges), but any line of questioning that provoked surprise or was even referenced in opinions would do.
My guess is you will find very few. I also don’t think Thomas is a dim bulb. I don’t agree with most of his opinions and I think that he (like Scalia) has an unexamined political bias hard at work, but there are plenty of opinions he has written which struck me as thoughtful, precise and judicious. No one is going to remember him as a great justice, but he will be far from the worst. I’m much more worried about Roberts.
cbear
Perhaps the beatdown the poor dolt suffered for innocently inquiring as to the provenance of that pubic hair on his soda has him a little gun-shy of asking too many questions.
Yutsano
@JasonF: The primary purpose of oral argument (or at least what it’s supposed to be) is to have the sides give further clarification of whatever point they think needs it. It can also be used to pursue a line of questioning that wasn’t considered by a lower court. If you get a complicated case with dozens of conflicting arguments and opinions and don’t think you need further input, that’s either arrogant or lazy in my opinion. The fact that the justices use it for sniping or to talk at each other is not the point. I’d rather a lawyer know he or she needs to have their shit together by this level or else they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
suzanne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I’m trying to fathom the kind of crankiness and sourness of personality it takes to do something like that.
Almost makes me want to get the dude a hooker so he could just chillax.
Warren Terra
I’m inclined to agree with KG and JasonF – Thomas is a sick, twisted, bitter man (check out his interviews from his recent book tour) but his silence during oral arguments isn’t the problem.
junebug
@Yutsano: I think it’s obvious that DougJ has a (liberal)female fan club, of which I am a member. I was so disappointed when he refused to share his pic, though I must admit, he is my ideal boyfriend. Though that will never happen for a variety of reasons, I still find him fascinating. And I am not being silly. I think. GO ABL!!!!!!
Back to Thomas, he’s bored. Whitey gave him a forever job and yeah he got a book out of it, but his heart is not in it anymore. Read his book and you know that he knows why he is on the court. To be such a public tool with the wife he has must not be much like his grandfather hoped his life would be. I almost feel sorry for him, but he does have it made, unlike many of his peers.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
I do my talking on balloon-juice.com, and you can quote me on that.
.
.
junebug
@Warren Terra:
He is the thing he said he hates. he got his spot on the court simply because the color of his skin poked an eye in the Democrats and he knows it. He’s a tool and he knows it. That’s what his book was all about.
Colin Powell has tried to redeem himself, but there is just this one reason ever republicans rope in African-Americans, it’s to sway them from the Democratic base. No other reason. Just listen to wingnut radio for any period of time and they are beside themselves that African-Americans voted for/ support our president. It burns them up.
Yutsano
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Like a moth to the flame. I sometimes hate being right.
Mark S.
I agree with the commenters above who don’t think this is a big deal. In the oral arguments I’ve read or listened to, the questions and comments from the justices are mostly dick-waving (especially from Scalia) or trying to make the lawyers look like idiots. I think they miss being law professors.
I remember reading a comment section somewhere else (probably Drum or Yglesias) a couple years ago where a commenter who claimed to be an appellate lawyer said that except in highly technical cases, justices are hardly ever swayed by oral argument and already know which way their going to rule.
GregB
Poor Clarence. He is the beneficiary of that bete noir of all rightwingers and Republicans. Affirmative action.
It was conservative affirmative action.
He’s a shallow and bitter hack who’s making a killing and he’s still a miserable fuck along with his horrid wife who’s still so bitter over the fact that he tried to fuck Anita Hill.
By the way, Clarence Thomas was the first African-American on the Supreme Court. I know that is true because a forwarded e-mail told me so.
KG
@Mark S.: I’ve practiced a bit in appellate courts and it’s true that oral arguments are looked at as mere formalities… that’s also been the case in trial courts, in my experience. I’ve been before quite a few trial courts that issue tentative rulings (and even an appellate court that does) and getting them to reverse a tentative is damn near impossible.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@Yutsano:
.
.
You’re wrong. It’s like sand through an hourglass. Next case!
.
.
sharl
Former Senator John Danforth (R-MO) deserves quite a bit of credit for getting Justice Thomas on the SC bench. A basically decent fellow (IMO), especially by current standards for GOP officeholders, Danforth let personal relationships and religious bias drive him to push the nomination hard. Toward the end of this 2004 WaPo article there are a couple paragraphs about this.
I sometimes wonder if the likes of Danforth and the GHWB White House pushed an otherwise reluctant Thomas into taking a job he knew he wouldn’t like. I doubt Justice Thomas would ever be in the mood to admit such a thing, if true.
morzer
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
You were more convincing when you were silent, Clarrie.
cmorenc
@junebug :
The worst part of it was that Thomas was the direct replacement for the seat vacated when Justice Thurgood Marshall retired. Thurgood Marshall was one of the key lawyers in the Civil Right struggles to get segregation and Plessy v Fergueson overruled, a real giant of a man whose legal opinions were informed far more by a lifetime of genuine difficult struggle and experience of discrimination than by abstract ideological notions. While Marshall’s opinions often lacked the degree of neatness of legal reasoning preferred by many legal scholars, their soundness was based on the fruits of genuine experience rather than logical abstractions.
The selection of a lightweight ideologue like Thomas whose outlook stands against nearly everything Marshall ever stood for or accomplished, and who was so gravely lacking in his own accomplishments at the time of his nomination, is a grave, unforgivable insult left to us by Bush the elder when he was President. Bush literally picked Thomas to spit in the eye of the elder Marshall and nominate as close to a complete counter-example as he could possibly find.
freelancer
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
We got ’em goin’ down for the count, lookin’ at the ground
That’s why we got haters, that’s why we got haters
Haters everywhere we go, haters everywhere we go
Haters everywhere we go, where we go
Haters goin’ down for the count (ONE) lookin’ at the ground (TWO)
I think you’re a hater, I think you’re a hater
Haters everywhere we go, haters everywhere we go
Haters everywhere we go, where we go, haters goin’ down for the count
Or would you prefer the Girl Talk remix, you vapid “faux lawn jockey”?
Yutsano
@freelancer: I keep thinking of fish, barrels, and MacBeth. Too many possibilities abound here.
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano: Love called this thing.
JGabriel
Adam Liptak:
He tried whispering to Justice Sotomayor during trial once, but she turned to face him squarely, then said in a loud voice, as if deaf, “I’M SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT PUBIC HAIR?”
.
Yutsano
@JGabriel: Heh. Win.
Although they sit on opposite sides of each other IIRC. Plus the rumor is they can’t stand each other.
@Jeanne ringland: Oh I knew it would show up and spout nonsense as soon as I saw what the subject was. If it’s love, it’s indeed a selfish one.
freelancer
@Yutsano:
Out, Out! Damned troll.
@JGabriel:
You might want to refrain from dotting your posts for a bit. Just sayin’.
ChrisZ
In undeserved fairness to Thomas, there are a lot of very talkative Justices on the bench right now, and in the short time allotted for oral argument there’s really not a lot of time for the lawyers to actually speak. If Thomas were asking questions too it would just make the problem worse.
It’s not clear to me what good oral arguments are these days but they are fascinating to listen too, all online here for the law-curious: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano: Ack! It’s the title of a short story, and do you think I can find a reference to it???? Dang.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@morzer:
,
,
Many tenth-wits feel that way.
.
.
Jeanne ringland
Yutsano, It’s by Avram Davidson, and it’s very funny IIRC.
JGabriel
@freelancer:
Why, is it causing a formatting problem? It’s a habit from when I was on a bulletin board in the 90’s, where the separator line rode up weirdly close to the last line of a comment — kinda like here, in fact:
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@freelancer:
.
.
I get it, I get it – you’re a hater. Next case!
.
.
Jeanne ringland
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Now now, you think you’re a real wit but you’re only half right.
Yutsano
@Jeanne ringland: Oh, I was kinda hoping for Annie Proulx, but I’ll do some Googling.
@Jeanne ringland: Just point and giggle. It’s barely even worth that, but hey, gotta do something with your evening amirite?
JGabriel
Adam Liptak:
Because when you’re a pubic figure addressing the youth of Amreica, your personal depression and despair are appropriate themes of inspiration.
What a frickin’ jackass.
.
Yutsano
@Jeanne ringland: Here’s a list of his works, it might be a fishing expedition but it’s a start.
morzer
@Jeanne ringland:
The poor sod thinks of himself as a pubic intellectual.
Jeanne ringland
@morzer: I see what you did there.
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano: I was thinking of going to bed. He’s not really trying, is he?
Well, he is very trying, but he’s not trying.
morzer
@Jeanne ringland:
I just don’t think he’s boner fide.. if you see what I mean.
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano:
This is the beginning of the text of the story, and it took me a minute or so to figure out what was going on the first time I read it, probably back in HS.
http://docs8.chomikuj.pl/296266444,0,1,Love-Called-This-Thing.txt
Jeanne ringland
@morzer: I do see what you mean, and I see what you did there too.
;-)
Warren Terra
@Jeanne ringland:
I also like the version of this insult where the recipient thinks they’ve got a lot of vast notions.
elle
@KG:
In five whole years? In the last 5 years at your job, do you mean to say you have not asked your boss a single question? Not made a single suggestion? And if you haven’t, are you still employed at this same establishment?
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano: I think it might be the entire text. It’s a little tough to read in that format.
morzer
@elle:
That would be Reason and Cato.
asiangrrlMN
@JGabriel: God. Cracked me the fuck up this did. Snert.
@morzer: Tee-hee. You made a funny. You are full of it.
ETA: Since I have no clue as to whether or not a judge should talk during a case, I will wisely sit this one out and just watch the show.
Jeanne ringland
@Warren Terra:
Half?
Vast?
Notions?
morzer
@asiangrrlMN:
Reminds me of the joke that if the Thomases call you early in the morning, the one who just breathes heavily is Clarence.
asiangrrlMN
@morzer: Heh. Sadly, I think I would actually prefer to get a call from Clarence than from Ginny. She skeers me.
morzer
@asiangrrlMN:
Well, I suspect that if you breathe heavily back, Clarence just f*cks off in a rage, but Ginny might get seriously interested.
asiangrrlMN
@morzer: Or the other way around! Ew. I just skeeved myself out.
Yutsano
@Jeanne ringland: I think that ran through a Google translator a few too many times. Or else he was way ahead of his time in writing style. Funny part is just the bit I read I get where he was coming from, it’s a rather prescient tale of the technological changes that were happening then and society adapting to them. Or something.
@asiangrrlMN: Umm…I would like to sleep without nightmares tonight thankyewverymuch.
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: Me, too! Brain bleach for everyone.
srv
@junebug:
Oh, please. That myth has been beaten down here for years.
Mark S.
Scott Lemieux has often wrote that while he doesn’t agree with much of his jurisprudence, Thomas is a lot more intellectually consistent that Scalia (and probably the two doofuses Roberts and Alito). I can’t find the post I had in mind, but here are two along those lines.
JGabriel
@asiangrrlMN: I learned a new word today, I can’t wait to use it next time someone posts about Palin: Quatsch.
Oddly enough, I came across it while reading an interview with art historian Erwin Panofsky on the Voynich Manuscript — which is a different kind of quatsch.
.
asiangrrlMN
@JGabriel: Nice! Much better than word salad.
ETA: I’m in that time period where if I don’t get up in the next five minutes, I’m going to fall asleep at the compy. So, night all. Don’t let the pubic lice bite!
JGabriel
Mark S.:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
morzer
@JGabriel:
Of course, there is the more openly mocking version:
Sassquatsch!
JWL
Thomas keeps his mouth shut good and tight because his people were trained to do so by their betters. End of discussion.
Keith G
@JWL:
Please clarify.
Pooh
Firmly in the camp of those who say ” so what” to this, despite thinking CT is in general, whack.
Pooh+6
NobodySpecial
Five years without having to hear Thomas speak is a good beginning. If you can add to it not voting on cases or writing opinions, then you’ve got something.
@Keith G: Clarify what? Either he’s a racist or he’s snarking on the obvious racism.
electricgrendel
And just keep in mind that this guy is filling the seat of Thurgood Marshall. That’s pretty much like putting me in Stephen Hawking’s place when he left Cambridge.
morzer
I must confess that, while I consider Thomas to be a reactionary troglodyte and thoroughly mediocre justice, I would prefer him to stop writing, rather than to start talking.
bob h
He’s smart enough to know that he is out of his depth.
stuckinred
They manage to get him to speak at UGA Law School Graduations.
salacious crumb
he probably daydreams of tapping some young hot interns ass.
Sko Hayes
@JGabriel:
Um, your freudian slip is showing. ;)
R-Jud
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
Maybe THAT’S what he’s doing during sessions.
Brandon
@R-Jud: Because if it’s not love, then its the bond, the bond, the bond, the bond, the bond that brings wingnuts together.
aimai
Whichever way you slice it refusing to speak in public during these cases, refusing to acknowledge or examine the work of the lawyers presented in Oral Argument, is an act of extreme hostility and discomfort. LIke a child who refuses to speak or to blow out the candles at his own birthday party. Its a stifled cry of rage. I’ve always thought, since the damned Anita Hill hearings, that Thomas was eaten up with envy, rage, pride, and a kind of joyless, power tripping, lechery. HIs behavior on the bench simply confirms it. I think he can’t bring himself to comment because he knows he would either burst into tears of rage or shouts of obscenities.
aimai
JPL
@aimai: That’s an interesting comment. Do you think he goaded his wife into calling Anita Hill? Why doesn’t Thomas just send a cut-out picture of himself to the court proceedings?
Tancrudo
So is this despicable toad ever going to be impeached?
Lavocat
He wishes to appear wise. Opening his mouth would obviously give us reason to doubt appearances.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
When I’ve got nothing to say my lips are sealed.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Fxd4U
sparky
um, wouldn’t it be better to pick on Thomas for what he actually does, rather than assuming you know what’s going on in his head? to me, these are the kind of [adjective of choice] arguments the right has excelled at. all this does is give Rs an opportunity to say: “see, condescending lefty!!!!”
BigHank53
I’m guessing whenever he really needs an answer he can press one of his wife’s paystubs against his forehead, and absorb it via osmosis.
Jon
Meanwhile, the NYT informs us that since Stephen Breyer has liberal friends who might come over to dinner, it’s the exact same thing as Scalia and Thomas very publicly participating in wingnutty enterprises like the Tea Party and the Koch brothers’ Galt-conference wankfest.
Turgid Jacobian
@KG: No, it isn’t that he doesn’t ask “a lot of questions.” He doesn’t ask *any*. It’s creepy.
befuggled
@Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen: Say something once, why say it again?
Southern Beale
My husband just said:
“He lets his wife do the talking for him.”
Oy.
Bobby Thomson
@KG:
Clarence Thomas is making sense!
It’s an old adage among judges that oral argument never makes a difference. It shouldn’t in most cases. Oral argument doesn’t change the facts. Oral argument doesn’t change the law. Judges shouldn’t be swayed by a good speech.
Almost the only times it should make a difference are when someone makes a big admission or when there is a hole in the argument in someone’s brief that gets plugged.
And Scalia is the Chuck Schumer of the SCOTUS.
JGabriel
@JPL:
What would make a wife call so many years later? I think Clarence has trouble getting it up, and blames it on Anita Hill.
.
Bobby Thomson
@Mark S.:
He’s right. It’s a matter of degree, and Thomas can outhack the best of them in the right case, but as a general rule he is more likely to follow consistent principles than Alito, Roberts, and Scalia (in that order, Alito being the biggest hack on the Court).
Johannes
Actually, according to William O. Douglas (who also wasn’t a big talker during oral arguments) cases may not be won during oral arguments, but may be lost or damaged. Oral argument gives the justices an opportunity to ask questions about the effect of ruling one way or another, or clarify the remedy sought.
An example from my own experience (not Supremes, but an appellate panel): I was arguing a politically unpopular position, but one with strong case support. My adversary wanted to create a broad exception to the general rule, one which, I had pointed out in my reply brief, could swallow the rule. One of the judges on the panel asked my adversary what limits there would be to the exception suggested, and the only answer was, “we don’t have to address that now.”
Well, I lost that case in an opinion issued quite soon after argument, but in language very different from the rest of the opinion, a short paragraph explicitly declined to adopt my adversary’s exception idea even as to the subject matter at issue, let alone its possibly swallowing the general rule. An example of how a win can be narrowed by not having an answer to a question in oral argument.
CT is clearly no Douglas; but they do have something in common here. Douglas was not as engaged in oral argument as the other justices (he wrote law review or other articles, or even drafts in other cases). But Douglas was not the bitter oddball Thomas comes off as, and his jurisprudence was highly thought out and lively. (Thomas, mind you, does have his moments–calling for the reversal of the Slaughterhouse Cases and re-enforcement of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the oxymoronic substantive due process approach we have today is great, if only I believed his purpose wasn’t to toss out all of the rights that have been incorporated that way). Overall, I would agree with the commenters saying that this one issue isn’t really a great basis for evaluation.
Marty
@JGabriel:
I think the reason Ginny phoned Anita Hill is that Clarence hates his job and wants to retire. But Clarence will not retire until Anita recants her story. Anita has to call off the demons first.
dino goposaur
What? “When’s lunch?” isn’t a question?
Chris
Are we sure he’s alive, and not just being propped up Weekend-at-Bernie’s-style by Scalia?
And exactly how does a strict constructionist think he’s going to get away with lying on federal disclosure forms for years? That’s a felony, and he did it more than a few times. If we had a functioning Department of Justice, with a President who wasn’t afraid his political opponents would call him names if he did anything, we might actually be able to enforce the law. But I suppose that’s silly: laws are for little people, and they’re certainly not for Republicans.
jcricket
What’s that line? Better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt?
Judging by Ginny Thomas’ actions, it’s no doubt that Thomas has learned keeping his trap shut allows him to retain some dignity and an air of seriousness.
But it’s clear that Republican judicial philosophy was the precursor to Fox News. Start by pretending it’s all about being “fair and balanced”, slam the other side as un-American activists, while using post-hoc reasoning (if any) to justify implementing a hard-right political fantasy on the American public.
And Democrats are losing this fight, like we lose all others, b/c we bring the knives to the gun fights. Enough is enough.
Another Bob
Sigh . . . This is just another “high tech lynching.” When will the unfairness stop? I think it’s time for Clarence’s wife to call up Anita Hill again and demand an explanation.
RalfW
Probably been said, but I’ll say it:
Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm it.
edit: yep, got said while I was typing.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
@Johannes: I’ve always thought of oral argument as the point where the court finds out if an attorney has brought his A game. If he has not, it is the point where the court begins to measure the attorney for a new asshole.
Johannes
@Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen: Yeah, that’s both true and a lot more concise than what I wrote. :)
MattB
@jcricket: It’s too bad Scalia hasn’t followed that old maxim…
Glen Tomkins
He’s in exile along with the Constitution.
He would be complimented, not insulted by the observation that no justice in 40 years has been as silent as he. You see, it’s been 80 years since SCOTUS went off on its current tangent away from original intent.
jcricket
@MattB: I think Scalia thinks he’s witty and what-not.
Roy G
Thomas is a perfect authoritarian conservative – he already has his mind made up, so he doesn’t want to learn anything that might change it. He just needs to look at the crib sheet that Roberts and Scalia make up for their bloc.
Oh, and his brilliant legal mind couldn’t comprehend that the $600k or so that Heritage paid to his wife was compensation, and needed to be disclosed. Because disclosure and conflict of interest are only for the little people, not our wise Solons of the Royal Court.
NobodySpecial
I’m guessing the wingnut is still steamed over Nixon v. Condon.
Sloegin
@Glen Tomkins: Ah, you mean when FDR appointed most of em they ran off the rails. Original intent you know.
I’m surprised you didn’t say it left ‘original intent’ during the Marshall Court period of the early 1800s when the court decided (on its own!) that it had the power of judicial review and could overturn laws passed by Congress. Oh, interstate commerce clause also.
That’d be the true tea-baggy thing to say.
Jeanne ringland
@Yutsano: No.
If you just read it it makes sense, but that format is deadly and maybe you have be about my age to get it since a lot of the lines are things we heard pretty often on the radio back in the 50’s and 60’s. It’s a lot of random cliche lines from various radio programs, soap operas, and ads, and the “thing” hears them and learns from them and becomes. Everything “he” knows is from these sources so everything he knows or does is based on them.
var
@jcricket. That quote is often attributed to a Republican – Abraham Lincoln. (It is often attributed to Twain as well, and perhaps has its roots in Proverbs 17:28)
Janus Daniels
Give him his due:
Clarence Thomas holds his breath for 1821 days!
He’ll never catch up with Generalíssimo Francisco Franco.
Parenthetically:
http://bible.cc/proverbs/17-28.htm
Jo
CT is a Bush gift that will keep on giving, like those two perjuring dumb-asses Roberts and Alito. The failure of John Kerry to carry Ohio, however that occurred is the greatest defeat for Democracy we’ll see. It allowed the installation of a court that hates Americans with a passion.
Wile E. Quixote
@electricgrendel:
I dunno, I think a better comparison would be putting Charles Krauthammer in Stephen Hawking’s place when he leaves Cambridge.
John E. Parks
And the latest item concerning the justice wont warm the cockles of our hearts…..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. 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.