Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-02-2011, 04:42 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,741,271 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
They include all points they want to make and that they've thought of until filing. After that it's a crap shoot --- they may not get the opportunity since their presentations are derailed.

Questions are generally asked to see if the lawyers understand the logic and, of course, to showboat. Some of it is legitimate.
They include all points that they want to make.

And after reviewing the written briefs, the judges think about points that weren't made in the briefs that should be addressed in the oral arguments. All the judges, except for Justice Thomas.

That he's an exception in this process does merit discussion of why he doesn't raise such points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2011, 04:42 PM
 
1,677 posts, read 1,663,313 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You don't have facts to support your conclusion. You have A. Then you posit C as your conclusion. With no B to support that conclusion.
This is what I think some are missing:

Genuine discussions of why Thomas has been silent lately are fine if they are not simply used for partisan headlines and talking points.

However, accusations that something is amiss as if they are facts are not fine unless you can show it. Imaginative assumptions have zero substance.

His silence does not mean he doesn't understand the logic. If he didn't understand, it would be evident in his writings.

Essentially, there is nothing to complain about unless you can show evidence that his silence may have affected his understanding and/or his conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,257 posts, read 6,112,187 times
Reputation: 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
Speculating what he might be thinking, not thinking, feeling or not feeling is entertaining, but it's extremely weak and nothing more than conjecture.

So let's stick to facts.

Fact: He has asked questions before,

so we can logically conclude he knows how to ask, and does, if needed. Also, you cannot assume that, if he had any questions in the past 5 years, they weren't asked and answered before he could ask.
Yes, he is not a deaf mute and CAN ask questions and yet does not. Which leads me to believe he really doesn't care about the cases he is hearing because he is a lifer and doesn't need to worry about job security. His non verbal stance for 5 years is frightening. Name ONE other career where you would still be considered qualified for not uttering a word during work hours. There is no way you could not contribute to a conversation regarding your chosen profession for 5 years straight and you still expect to keep your job. There is no professional career on earth that this behavior would be considered acceptable. What is he pleasuring himself under that robe instead of paying attention?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 04:54 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,741,271 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
This is what I think some are missing:

Genuine discussions of why Thomas has been silent lately are fine if they are not simply used for partisan headlines and talking points.

However, accusations that something is amiss as if they are facts are not fine unless you can show it. Imaginative assumptions have zero substance.

His silence does not mean he doesn't understand the logic. If he didn't understand, it would be evident in his writings.

Essentially, there is nothing to complain about unless you can show evidence that his silence may have affected his understanding and/or his conclusions.
I think this thread has been a genuine discussion of why Thomas has been silent. Some people are more partisan than others, and that's going to be reflected in the discussion.

I think you're insistence that your conclusion is the MOST logical explanation is partisan just as much as others' conclusions that Thomas simply is sub-standard.

And the evidence that you are demanding is clearly unavailable. We don't know if Thomas's opinions would change if he participated in the oral arguments because he doesn't participate. The student strip-search case might be exemplary, though. The justices during oral arguments tended to be quite dismissive of the student's humiliation when being strip-searched. Ginsberg's pointed remarks seemed to give some of the other justices who were participating in the discussion some insights into what it would be like to be falsely accused and then strip-searched. Thomas, who didn't participate, was the only justice to dissent, explicitly stating that he didn't think the justices should second-guess school administrators. If Supreme Court Justices are not in a position to second-guess school administrators, who is? Is this attitude toward authority, a consistent attitude per his decisions, appropriate for a justice? Is this why he didn't ask any questions? It's a worthwhile discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 06:17 PM
 
1,677 posts, read 1,663,313 times
Reputation: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think this thread has been a genuine discussion of why Thomas has been silent. Some people are more partisan than others, and that's going to be reflected in the discussion.

I think you're insistence that your conclusion is the MOST logical explanation is partisan just as much as others' conclusions that Thomas simply is sub-standard.

And the evidence that you are demanding is clearly unavailable. We don't know if Thomas's opinions would change if he participated in the oral arguments because he doesn't participate. The student strip-search case might be exemplary, though. The justices during oral arguments tended to be quite dismissive of the student's humiliation when being strip-searched. Ginsberg's pointed remarks seemed to give some of the other justices who were participating in the discussion some insights into what it would be like to be falsely accused and then strip-searched. Thomas, who didn't participate, was the only justice to dissent, explicitly stating that he didn't think the justices should second-guess school administrators. If Supreme Court Justices are not in a position to second-guess school administrators, who is? Is this attitude toward authority, a consistent attitude per his decisions, appropriate for a justice? Is this why he didn't ask any questions? It's a worthwhile discussion.

It is the most logical conclusion...nobody has logically refuted that.

You can't logically conclude he is substandard without supporting factual evidence to show incompetence/negligence.

If you think I'm being partisan, you've missed pertinent details.

I have stated a few times that I could debate the other side and bring supporting evidence.

The fact that no one from the opposing side has made an effort to bring something to justify their whining about his silence leaves me wondering if I should make the same assumptions about them that they make of Thomas...ignorant, lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc....or that perhaps they're just regurgitating headlines and talking points??? See how easy it is to make assumptions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 08:03 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,397,586 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
It is the most logical conclusion...nobody has logically refuted that.

You can't logically conclude he is substandard without supporting factual evidence to show incompetence/negligence.

If you think I'm being partisan, you've missed pertinent details.

I have stated a few times that I could debate the other side and bring supporting evidence.

The fact that no one from the opposing side has made an effort to bring something to justify their whining about his silence leaves me wondering if I should make the same assumptions about them that they make of Thomas...ignorant, lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc....or that perhaps they're just regurgitating headlines and talking points??? See how easy it is to make assumptions?
Did you just completely ignore the post about how the strip searching case reveals a potentially troubling side effect of his refusal to engage during oral arguments?

Thomas has said why he doesn't ask questions - he feels he already has everything he needs from the record and briefs of the parties (and maybe the amici briefs). Additionally, I know of no other judge in any district or circuit court that has come anywhere close to not asking a single question during oral arguments for anywhere near as long. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.

However, this utter inflexibility has lead in many cases to Thomas writing concurrences or dissents that no other justice would join in. The strip searching case is one example. Another was his sole dissent in an 8-1 decision saying he would hold part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On more than one occasion he has written that he wishes the parties would have addressed some issue or another; but of course, if Thomas himself doesn't raise the issue during oral arguments, it's slightly disingenuous for him to whine about it when writing by himself.

I don't think he's incompetent or negligent, but so completely inflexible and doctrinaire that he makes no effort to draft opinions that anybody else could join on with. This has a harmful effect on our jurisprudence and helps contribute to our increasingly fractured Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Tallahassee
1,869 posts, read 1,088,810 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
It is the most logical conclusion...nobody has logically refuted that.

You can't logically conclude he is substandard without supporting factual evidence to show incompetence/negligence.

If you think I'm being partisan, you've missed pertinent details.

I have stated a few times that I could debate the other side and bring supporting evidence.

The fact that no one from the opposing side has made an effort to bring something to justify their whining about his silence leaves me wondering if I should make the same assumptions about them that they make of Thomas...ignorant, lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc....or that perhaps they're just regurgitating headlines and talking points??? See how easy it is to make assumptions?
Let's see. You're "debating" and "arguing".......but everybody else is "whining and "regurgitating"....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2011, 10:07 PM
 
1,481 posts, read 2,150,738 times
Reputation: 888
Hold on, are your supreme court judges encouraged to take part in the political process by meeting people who actively support one party or another ?
Strange, most other countries make sure judges are well outside the political process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 08:16 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,741,271 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet_ohara View Post
It is the most logical conclusion...nobody has logically refuted that.

You can't logically conclude he is substandard without supporting factual evidence to show incompetence/negligence.

If you think I'm being partisan, you've missed pertinent details.

I have stated a few times that I could debate the other side and bring supporting evidence.

The fact that no one from the opposing side has made an effort to bring something to justify their whining about his silence leaves me wondering if I should make the same assumptions about them that they make of Thomas...ignorant, lazy, stupid, disinterested, etc....or that perhaps they're just regurgitating headlines and talking points??? See how easy it is to make assumptions?
You can't logically reach your conclusion without supporting factual evidence, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2011, 09:33 AM
 
3,681 posts, read 6,256,697 times
Reputation: 1515
My Goodness! For a man who doesn't say much, he sure has a lot of people talking! Over a hundred posts so far! I actually started this thread a while back and have a hard time believing people are still arguing over it and are no closer to seeing eye to eye! Maybe that gives a clue as to why some people just choose to listen and not engage! (Just sayin') Carry on...
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top