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.
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.”"
Are you for real? Has he ever voted anything outside of what scalia has told him?
I have to disagree with you on this: we watched them, as I am sure you did and it has been 20 years but I never believed one word she said or maybe only one. You are right, the attitude toward workplace sexual or any harrassment has changed, sometime maybe going to far the other way.
Nita
Yes, I watched them, and I was undecided either way. But I didn't know that some witnesses were never called back then. I do know now, which is why I can say that her claims were never proven false.
Are you for real? Has he ever voted anything outside of what scalia has told him?
I don't think this is a fair criticism. Scalia and Thomas actually disagree about 25% of the time. They have very similar philosophies, so it's not surprising that they agree as often as they do. And there are cases where it appears that Scalia follows Thomas's perspective, not the other way around.
There was a special on CSPAN the other night: "Considering the Role of Judges Under the Constitution of the United States" in which Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia were speaking to the Senate Judiciary Committee which was worth watching. They'll probably replay it (or if it's on YouTube by now).
Towards the end of the segment the issue of ethics was briefly discussed, and Justice Breyer explained the theory of conflict of interests and how they relate to Justices. His opinion can be summarized as follows. All Judges have to balance two competing interests: (a) obligation to serve justice and (b) obligation to recuse, and that the Supreme Court more than any other Court in the land differs in that the Justice has a higher obligation to serve than your typical Judge does.
In Breyers view, Justices are not as "replaceable" or "expendable" as lower court Judges usually are, and because of that, they must fulfill their obligation to serve in this very important role unless the conflict of interest is of such a sufficiently high degree that it it outweighs their obligation to serve the United States.
They have a professional ethical obligation to not shrug off their duty to serve as freely as lower court Judges. They cannot be replaced, and more than most (if not all) courts in the land, it is considered inappropriate and irresponsible to leave an empty set on the Supreme Court bench and not rule on matters. In essence, recusing oneself on SCOTUS should be viewed as a sort of nuclear option, albeit not quite that dramatic. It should not be done as a matter of routine course as it can with lower court Judges. It is a method, more or less, of last resort.
And that is Justice Breyer, a more liberal court member, offering that viewpoint. A view which is probably shared nearly unanimously by most Justices for the reasons explained by Breyer, due to the unique position of the Court which I think all Justices recognize. It is a sui generis type privilege of great discretion which comes with being on the highest Court in the land.
Well there is a simple way of not puting yourself in a position of having to recuse. Simply make sure that you or a person in your immediate family are not taking money from special interest groups. He put himself in this problem. The best thing to do in the interest of justice, is to either resign and continue to take money or stay on the bench and quit taking money; however, if he does neither, then he should be impeached for a continued disregard of the cannons of the Judiciary.
Well there is a simple way of not puting yourself in a position of having to recuse. Simply make sure that you or a person in your immediate family are not taking money from special interest groups. He put himself in this problem. The best thing to do in the interest of justice, is to either resign and continue to take money or stay on the bench and quit taking money; however, if he does neither, then he should be impeached for a continued disregard of the cannons of the Judiciary.
He is not disregarding the canons of the judiciary, he's considering whether his wife's income has affected his opinion on the issue, and determining that it has not, that his opinion would be the same regardless of the income. And in that sense, he sees no conflict.
It's his decision. It's always been the decision of the Supreme Court Justices whether or not to recuse themselves. If we impeach him, what are we saying about the judgment of all the Supreme Court Justices? That their judgment is subject to the review of public opinion? If we impeach a Justice for this, we weaken the Court as a whole, empowering the legislature instead. And the judicial branch is already the weakest part of the federal government. That's why I think it's ill-considered to talk about impeaching Thomas. We've had bad justices before. Thomas certainly isn't a great justice. The Supreme Court has survived the bad justices, but impeachment of Thomas is a politicization of the Court, and we're already political enough.
So will Morgan Freeman speak out against the racist democrats who will do anything to get a black man out of the supreme court?
Why do you think that the republicans puthim there in the first place? He is black in physical characteristics only Have'nt you heard of black on black crime?
Just imagine how much better the country would have been the last few years if Justice Thomas were President instead of Obama.
yeph black would be back on the plantations, hispanics (even the ones born here) would be deported, and all of the teabaggers would be singing his praise
Agreed, all liberals who want him out are racists!!!
And therefore all of the teabaggers and conservatives that want Obama out are racist as well
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.
No self respect clarence
Have'nt you heard of black on black crime?
