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.
Interesting... did you read his dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich?
I did. Not one of his worst. I'd have agreed with him that medical users were a severable class. Experience under the state law had made that rather abundantly clear, I thought. But I would have preferred O'Connor's tack of protecting state sovereignty and service in experimentation in the absence of a prima facie federal interest, of which, I certainly didn't see one...
Thomas: no questions in 2 years - Yahoo! News (broken link)
//
"One thing I've demonstrated often in 16 years is you can do this job without asking a single question," he [Thomas] told an adoring crowd at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
//
So?
Ever see the legal briefs they get on these cases? There's really no need to ask questions. I seriously doubt any minds are changed by the oral arguments.
Clarence Thomas is nothing more than a token black Supreme Court Justice. Completely unqualified, barely a year on the bench. Appointed only because of the color of his skin as Bush I attempted to curry favor with the black community.
It is not a requirement even to be a lawyer to sit on the USSC. Justice Thomas is a thoughtful and intelligent Justice. His single flaw is that his approach to the law is corrupt (in my view) and he therefore gets the majority of his decisions wrong...
If a Supreme Court judge, such as Thomas never asks questions on a case, it makes me wonder if his mind was already made up before hearing the case presented.
This is entirely a matter of temperament. As the Justice himself points out, by the time the other eight get done, there aren't any questions left to ask anyway...
Typcial to see the liberal loonies out an about at night. Not one of you could walk in his shoes, fact is, all of you loonies together couldnt fill his shoes.
His shoes aren't much of an issue. His jurisprudence is...
He votes almost exclusively with Scalia. In fact, without being overly harsh, that's really all he is, a black Antonio Scalia. The Republicans knew what they were getting when Bush I nominated him, a yes man.
They are both of a conservative view. Souter and Ginsburg are both of a liberal view. How often do they vote together?
Ever see the legal briefs they get on these cases? There's really no need to ask questions. I seriously doubt any minds are changed by the oral arguments.
Briefs are presented ahead of time, all angles are already presented... justices already discuss the case and form sides before the case is heard. It's all just an opportunity to hear onesself speak, which is why Thomas doesn't care to participate often.
It is not a requirement even to be a lawyer to sit on the USSC. Justice Thomas is a thoughtful and intelligent Justice. His single flaw is that his approach to the law is corrupt (in my view) and he therefore gets the majority of his decisions wrong...
And in my view he is one of the few that realize that the justices rely on precedent way too often and judge cases based upon precedent upon precedent where it distorts the value of the original intent. He is far from perfect, but his vocal opposition to using stare decisis as a crutch wins him major points in my book.
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.
