Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh good lord. Is that really the best you could come up with as a final point? It's so old, so tired, and so wrong. You jumped the shark with that comment - in other words, you lost credibility.
"Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
Important words for us all to heed.
He didn't name Obama, the left or right directly but he did say we have lots of problems.
Remember that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat the bad part of it, especially with a public school union education.
Judges that think oral arguments are a waste of time do not belong on the court, any court.
SOME oral arguments may be a waste of time, but more often than not it is an opportunity for the judges to ASK QUESTIONS. Briefs are by their nature partisan and don't always cover every angle.
Thomas thinks they are a waste of time because he's too dumb to ask decent questions.
Oh good lord. Is that really the best you could come up with as a final point? It's so old, so tired, and so wrong. You jumped the shark with that comment - in other words, you lost credibility.
Who was the last conservative black person that liberals respected?
Or the comment was so off you please give me the list of conservative black people liberals respect and don't just put down as easily as they breath air.
Oh good lord. Is that really the best you could come up with as a final point? It's so old, so tired, and so wrong. You jumped the shark with that comment - in other words, you lost credibility.
I call it showboating, and a waste of time since everything has already been said in writing, and they all have read it.
Show boating to the highest degree!, For years a group in New York has been trying to get heard on "OUR" right to regress against our government for wrongs done , a constitutional right , and the court refuses to hear the matter. guess thats too tough subject for them to hear? I guess if you stand up for your rights you are assumed to be trying to undermine the court as he stated.
"Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
Important words for us all to heed.
" WE THE PEOPLE" have been trying to defend this country and our rights but none of the Justices including Thomas want to be bothered hearing it or asking any question regarding "OUR" right to regress against our government for wrongs that have been done. Is that action not standing up for our country?? is it not standing up for your rights?. They can't have it both ways ! or can they? By not allowing the case to be heard they all don't have to argue the hard questions don't ya think?
Where do you get the idea that judges don't do this ALL THE TIME?
Good judges, interested judges, ASK QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME. Oral argument before an appellate court is often more like an interrogation than it is giving a speech.
Then he's even dumber than I thought. No kidding he objects, because the pointed questions from the other judges - while getting none from him - make him look stupid.
He couldn't if he tried, and what Scalia does IS standard procedure.
To him, it is.
Just had to play the race card, didn't you? Thurgood Marshall asked questions.
You know who HE was, right?
Yeah, judges ask questions all the time, but they are not required to as you are suggesting.
They ask questions when there are holes and illogic in the arguments. And then some of them do it to showboat, as if they have something to prove to their audience.
You want to see a little song and dance, entertainment from Thomas even though it will most likely be redundant!
So SC justices are supposed to do exactly as an appellate judge that you personally witnessed. Each should behave in exactly the same manner to satisfy you.
Gee, I wonder how Kagan, who has never been a judge, is going to handle that. Are you going to school her on proper judge procedure per your instructions?
You are making assertions and forming conclusions based solely on your personal opinion.
You can't even bring a logical argument to this thread so I think the probability is high that if a judge drilled you, your argument was either insufficient, illogical and/or had holes in it.
Oh good lord. Is that really the best you could come up with as a final point? It's so old, so tired, and so wrong. You jumped the shark with that comment - in other words, you lost credibility.
It's liberal logic.
I'm actually a little surprised you and the other poster fell for pointing it out.
You see, when conservatives criticize and oppose Obama, it's claimed to be because of his skin color.
Do you remember that bit of liberal logic now?
I hope so, because as you say, it has no credibility. May I expect to see you pointing this out every time you see it used from now on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
