U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2011, 10:59 AM
 
39,020 posts, read 23,146,013 times
Reputation: 12146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
It is really astonishing how little the left knows.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin on Clarence Thomas: “Rarely Has A Supreme Court Justice Enjoyed Such Broad Vindication.” | The Kitchen Cabinet.US (http://thekitchencabinet.us/2011/09/03/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-on-clarence-thomas-rarely-has-a-supreme-court-justice-enjoyed-such-broad-vindication/ - broken link)

"The greatest revenge is success. Clarence Thomas may go down in judicial history as the most important voice on the Court in two decades. In Toobin’s New Yorker article, Steve Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and co-founder of the Federalist Society says, “(Thomas’ opinions) are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction.”"
I would have to say that he has most certainly staked out some bold positions, but I would not consider his views to be the most principled. The Court hasn't moved in his direction since he took his seat, the Court has moved further right since he took his seat. Thomas definitely is right-leaning, but the Court has not adopted his views at all. Thomas tends to side with authority; for example, siding with the school about strip-searching a young woman for two Tylenol tablets, or about government surveillance and searches without warrants. Thomas's views seem to reflect an affinity for authoritarianism, I don't think that's a principle that the other Justices share.

That said, I also think that the repeated attempts to remove Justice Thomas from the Court are ill-considered. Justice Thomas was legally appointed to the Court, his legal reasoning and opinions offer a different perspective, and that's what Americans do want on the Court. Multiple perspectives, healthy debate, which can lead the Court to better rulings in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,829 posts, read 2,656,747 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I would have to say that he has most certainly staked out some bold positions, but I would not consider his views to be the most principled. The Court hasn't moved in his direction since he took his seat, the Court has moved further right since he took his seat. Thomas definitely is right-leaning, but the Court has not adopted his views at all. Thomas tends to side with authority; for example, siding with the school about strip-searching a young woman for two Tylenol tablets, or about government surveillance and searches without warrants. Thomas's views seem to reflect an affinity for authoritarianism, I don't think that's a principle that the other Justices share.

That said, I also think that the repeated attempts to remove Justice Thomas from the Court are ill-considered. Justice Thomas was legally appointed to the Court, his legal reasoning and opinions offer a different perspective, and that's what Americans do want on the Court. Multiple perspectives, healthy debate, which can lead the Court to better rulings in the long run.

If the authority being wielded is "constitutional" then the justices should not challenge it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:12 AM
 
12,439 posts, read 9,952,483 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I would have to say that he has most certainly staked out some bold positions, but I would not consider his views to be the most principled. The Court hasn't moved in his direction since he took his seat, the Court has moved further right since he took his seat. Thomas definitely is right-leaning, but the Court has not adopted his views at all. Thomas tends to side with authority; for example, siding with the school about strip-searching a young woman for two Tylenol tablets, or about government surveillance and searches without warrants. Thomas's views seem to reflect an affinity for authoritarianism, I don't think that's a principle that the other Justices share.

That said, I also think that the repeated attempts to remove Justice Thomas from the Court are ill-considered. Justice Thomas was legally appointed to the Court, his legal reasoning and opinions offer a different perspective, and that's what Americans do want on the Court. Multiple perspectives, healthy debate, which can lead the Court to better rulings in the long run.
The fact that his briefs are written well only means that Thomas has hired good clerks to do his writing. Unfortunately for him, they are not allowed to speak during oral arguments, which may explain why he never asks any questions.

As far as taking him down for ideology, I am against that; however, when his wife takes 700K for a right wing organization that he himself would not be allowed to take and then sit on cases where the organization has a personal stake, without disclosing it. I think impeachment proceedings are in order. We deserve to have an unbiased judiciary, and this involves bribery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:14 AM
 
5,429 posts, read 4,196,407 times
Reputation: 5730
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

I hope that they finally are successful at destroying this incompetent Justice. He is an insult to the seat once held by the great Thurgood Marshall.

I guess you just want a black man out of there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:19 AM
 
39,020 posts, read 23,146,013 times
Reputation: 12146
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock View Post
If the authority being wielded is "constitutional" then the justices should not challenge it.
The Justices are charged with determining whether it is Constitutional or not. Just because Thomas thinks that virtually every act of police or security is Constitutional does not mean that the other Justices or any American citizen should concur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,526 posts, read 6,963,697 times
Reputation: 2840
Buncha hate-filled racists trying to unseat a black man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:25 AM
 
39,020 posts, read 23,146,013 times
Reputation: 12146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
The fact that his briefs are written well only means that Thomas has hired good clerks to do his writing. Unfortunately for him, they are not allowed to speak during oral arguments, which may explain why he never asks any questions.

As far as taking him down for ideology, I am against that; however, when his wife takes 700K for a right wing organization that he himself would not be allowed to take and then sit on cases where the organization has a personal stake, without disclosing it. I think impeachment proceedings are in order. We deserve to have an unbiased judiciary, and this involves bribery.
He did fail to disclose his wife's income, however that issue has since been addressed. Bribery is an extreme accusation. I think that Thomas and his wife share an ideology, and I find it doubtful that his wife or her income has influenced him beyond the very normal influence of feeling validated. Thomas's wife and her associations validate the opinions, views and perspectives that Thomas has long held, and that validation may encourage him to continue with his authoritarian views, but to impeach him I think that it would have to be proven that his views were compromised. There's simply too much history in his judicial record that demonstrates that his views have not been compromised.

His failure to disclose his wife's income is not an impeachable offense, but it does and should cast a cloud over him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,102 posts, read 12,799,363 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Thomas has major conflict of interest problems as well as that he lied on his mandated disclosure forms.

Regardless of whether you like his viewpoint or not, a Supreme Court justice must be above suspicion of being unduly influenced by corruption or undo influence. The fact that his wife takes money from groups that her husband is ruling on is an ethical problem.
Rightwingers just see that as "free market"

He's just another incompetent repug left over from the neoCON salad days that we are stuck paying for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: One of the 13 original colonies.
9,964 posts, read 6,099,567 times
Reputation: 7829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
You bunch of ignorant, racist liberals need mental help, Clarence Thomas isn't going anywhere until he knows he'll be replaced by another conservative justice.

Stop dreaming, Obamacare is going down.

You said it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 11:49 AM
 
Location: 95468
1,383 posts, read 2,064,518 times
Reputation: 937
Default Dumb and dumber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
You know just from a purely objective legal standpoint. Many impartial Constitutional scholars consider him a really weak Justice. He turned out to be a real dud...not just from a liberal point of view but from an objective comparison to other judges. He just doesn't have the intellect. He went 5 years without asking a question during oral arguments. Pathetic.
We warned you about affirminative action.
You lefties keep making the same mistakes over and over and over .........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top