By "intellectually independant" you mean independent from the intellect, right?

Explain why someone who voted the same as Scalia MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE would be considered the most independent. If anything, he is BY FAR the least independent.

The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia.


Oh, well, I guess he presented a fine counter to my argument, then.

He's wonderfully unaffected by the ravages of intelligence.

That's because he's celebrating INDEPENDANCE DAY

And here I thought he just wrote down, "Whatever Scalia thinks - that's what I think too" most of the time.

I think he deserves a coke and a smile

conservatives believe that doctrines like substantive due process, the exclusionary rule, and a high wall separating church and state aren't merely wrong but overstep the limited role of judges and endanger the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Damn that separation of Church and State.

Whamdangler: Explain why someone who voted the same as Scalia MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE would be considered the most independent. If anything, he is BY FAR the least independent.

Can you back that up with some numbers?

Sid_6.7: By "intellectually independant" you mean independent from the intellect, right?

This. Clarence Thomas is the black Kermit The Frog, but much less funny. He couldn't say anything without Scalia's hand up his ass, making his mouth move.

Clarence Thomas is an award?

ne2d: Can you back that up with some numbers?

Sure, here's one:

http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2009/04/supreme-court-focus-on-scalia-thomas . html

In any event, Thomas voted for the politically conservative position in every one of the defining decisions. In every one of that pool of cases. 100 per cent. [Just a mere coincidence! Alright, I'll stop.] Scalia voted the politically conservative position every time but once. 93%.

...

As for the "cultural issues" cases, Scalia and Thomas again voted 100% politically conservative. On gun control, the Gitmo detainees, the authority of international law, the death penalty. What would be the position of a conservative Republican politician? That's how Scalia and Thomas voted every time.

and finally...

Not surprisingly, Scalia and Thomas vote with each other more than they vote with others. Significantly more.

Long Dong Silver strikes again

NittLion78 [TotalFark]

Stop goofing around on the internet and finish your work so we can go drinking numbnuts.

Whamdangler: In any event, Thomas voted for the politically conservative position in every one of the defining decisions.

I.e., 15 decisions chosen by that blogger out of the 67 from one term. I'm no fan of Thomas, but I think this notion that he sides with Scalia significantly more often than, say, Ginsburg sides with Breyer is overstated and not very helpful.

You guys are useless. No one has told me how I can get my Clarence Thomas award, and where I can pick it up.

Changing gears to another topic entirely, I think that the most interesting Justices, by far, were Justices Scalia and Thomas. Both remain the most principled members of the Court. They joined the defendant-favoring majorities in Gant and Melendez-Diaz, as they consistently have done in the recent lines of jury-right and confrontation cases. Justice Scalia joined the left to provide a majority in Cuomo and Spears. Justice Thomas did the same in the maritime punitive damages case, Atlantic Sounding. There is no counter-example in which a member of the left joined the Court's four most conservative Justices to provide a majority

Wow, that's strange at first glance, but when you think about it, they don't need a judge from the left to join them cause they have Kennedy to get to the fifth vote most of the time.

Justice Thomas, in particular, remained willing to front new theories on critical questions, often writing only for himself, as in NAMUDNO. No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas's views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice's greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice.

That selection right there will make people's heads explode.

Whamdangler: Explain why someone who voted the same as Scalia MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE would be considered the most independent. If anything, he is BY FAR the least independent.

So if, say, Souter voted with Breyer MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, would we consider Souter to be Breyer's lackey? Or vice-versa?

KaponoFor3: That selection right there will make people's heads explode.

I think the guy is wrong, but for different reasons. I admit that Thomas is probably the most likely of the 9 justices to be the 1 in an 8-1 decision, but I think he is that way because he is a very narrow thinker. He only has a few basic principles which he just applies to everything. He has no room in his philosophies for nuance. I think someone like Stevens is vastly more 'principled', if we take that to mean someone who will actually stick to principles which being willing to integrate them into reality. Thomas just hangs on to a few views like a drowning man holding on to a hanging branch, unaware the water is only a few feet deep.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong about Thomas and presented with a case where he is legitimitately nuanced, but I haven't yet seen one.

KaponoFor3: So if, say, Souter voted with Breyer MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, would we consider Souter to be Breyer's lackey? Or vice-versa?

I'll with you on this one. For every justice, there is some other justice who votes with them more than anyone else.

DamnYankees: I'll with you on this one. For every justice, there is some other justice who votes with them more than anyone else.

Exactly, that's a poor statistic to use to try to prove that any Justice is another's lackey.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: I'll with you on this one. For every justice, there is some other justice who votes with them more than anyone else.

Exactly, that's a poor statistic to use to try to prove that any Justice is another's lackey.

The way to do it is to show that Thomas' rate of doing so is much higher than everyone else's. As to that I have no idea.

DamnYankees: The way to do it is to show that Thomas' rate of doing so is much higher than everyone else's. As to that I have no idea.

Like you said, he's always prime candidate #1 for being the 1 in an 8-1 decision. I bet his rate of siding on the same side of Scalia, or joining in the same opinions, would be smaller than some members amongst the Left of the Court for that very reason.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: The way to do it is to show that Thomas' rate of doing so is much higher than everyone else's. As to that I have no idea.

Like you said, he's always prime candidate #1 for being the 1 in an 8-1 decision. I bet his rate of siding on the same side of Scalia, or joining in the same opinions, would be smaller than some members amongst the Left of the Court for that very reason.

Yes. But I don't think being the most likely to be the 1 means much. Barbara Lee and Ron Paul qualify for that in Congress, and neither are particularly brilliant.

You may choose whatever mental gymnastics you want in order to explain it away, but a statement (backed with numbers) of:

Not surprisingly, Scalia and Thomas vote with each other more than they vote with others. Significantly more.

Doesn't tend to reinforce the notion that Thomas is intellectually independent, does it?

Whamdangler: You may choose whatever mental gymnastics you want in order to explain it away, but a statement (backed with numbers) of:

Not surprisingly, Scalia and Thomas vote with each other more than they vote with others. Significantly more.

Doesn't tend to reinforce the notion that Thomas is intellectually independent, does it?

I think the point is that it is really easy to create correlations to prove a point if you want to bad enough. Just define your set right and you've got an easy point to make.

Whamdangler: You may choose whatever mental gymnastics you want in order to explain it away, but a statement (backed with numbers) of:

Not surprisingly, Scalia and Thomas vote with each other more than they vote with others. Significantly more.

Doesn't tend to reinforce the notion that Thomas is intellectually independent, does it?

Again, the blogger you quote bases that number on 15 decisions from one term.

El Chode: I think the point is that it is really easy to create correlations to prove a point if you want to bad enough. Just define your set right and you've got an easy point to make.

That's not MY point at all. The point is they vote together. A lot. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. It hardly makes him independent. In fact, it tends to make him appear to be one of the LEAST intellectually independent justices. THAT is my point.

Whamdangler: That's not MY point at all. The point is they vote together. A lot. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. It hardly makes him independent. In fact, it tends to make him appear to be one of the LEAST intellectually independent justices. THAT is my point.

But my point is that if you want to refute it, you can make a claim comparing other bosom-buddy justices that shows they're just as co-dependent. I mean in most cases, there's always a majority that goes in a certain direction, and minority that goes in another, and it's pretty predictable to see which way they'll go. Be defining my set like that, I could argue that NO justice is independent.

El Chode: But my point is that if you want to refute it, you can make a claim comparing other bosom-buddy justices that shows they're just as co-dependent. I mean in most cases, there's always a majority that goes in a certain direction, and minority that goes in another, and it's pretty predictable to see which way they'll go. Be defining my set like that, I could argue that NO justice is independent.

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm

OK, this guy did a bunch of statistical analysis. He shows, in numbers, that Scalia and Thomas vote together more than any two other justices. Their scores are ALWAYS closer than any other two justices. Always. Scalia and Thomas are CLOSER than any other two justices in their opinions. Not only is Thomas NOT intellectually independent...he and Scalia are THE LEAST differentiated, the LEAST independent from each other.

Who gives a shiat about who votes with who, there's always going to be ideological soulmates on the court. Show me some writing, whether for the majority or the dissenters that illustrates a farking first rate mind and I'm O.k. with you.

That goes for anybody.

/ IMHO Scalia is not a first rate mind, thank you

This article had too many words and not enough pictures. It was too much for my feeble mind.

Whamdangler: OK, this guy did a bunch of statistical analysis. He shows, in numbers, that Scalia and Thomas vote together more than any two other justices. Their scores are ALWAYS closer than any other two justices. Always. Scalia and Thomas are CLOSER than any other two justices in their opinions. Not only is Thomas NOT intellectually independent...he and Scalia are THE LEAST differentiated, the LEAST independent from each other.

Well, if you want me to criticize the numbers, they are now 7 years old.

Furthermore, votes are one thing, but reading any Court decision often reveals that Justices, especially Scalia, will in fact vote in favor of the decision, but for very different reasons, if only to maintain their reputation as wanting to be known as "originalist" or "textualist". So choosing to define your set as "majority/minority" distinction may not reveal the underlying issue of whether their thoughts are independent. Scalia may feel that a decision is right simply on grounds that the appellants didn't have standing to begin with, where as Thomas might find a compelling argument in his belief that the appellants never had an actionable right in the first place. Same result, for different reasons.

If anything, Thomas is fairly consistent in his approach regardless of political arguments, and I find it interesting that it's viewed as "Thomas always follows Scalia" as if Thomas is unable to make a choice that Scalia likes as well.

*Please note, nothing I'm saying is an endorsement of Thomas' philosophies.

Whamdangler: OK, this guy did a bunch of statistical analysis. He shows, in numbers, that Scalia and Thomas vote together more than any two other justices. Their scores are ALWAYS closer than any other two justices. Always. Scalia and Thomas are CLOSER than any other two justices in their opinions. Not only is Thomas NOT intellectually independent...he and Scalia are THE LEAST differentiated, the LEAST independent from each other.

To play both sides of it now, the authors cite to their own stats in the article. (new window)

Judging by these stats, they don't speak to the idea that Scalia + Thomas = orgasm since Scalia and Alito and Roberts seem to get along better more often and disagree just as much. Without doing any math, it looks as though Stevens is the most disagreeable, which would lead one to believe he was on his own the most. Or that he's just old and cranky.

I think the articles entire premise is that out of the 4 8-1 decisions, Thomas was the "1" in 3 of them.

Could we have a Supreme Court thread that doesn't have KaponoFor3 and DamnYankees arguing with each other and ignoring everyone else?

/kidding, you two are often the most intelligent debate in these threads
//and it's more fun when Nabb1 is around.

El Chode: I think the articles entire premise is that out of the 4 8-1 decisions, Thomas was the "1" in 3 of them.

Yes, when it's a lost cause, Scalia lets him vote how he wants. Of course, it could be when Scalia mouths "Vote Yes" Thomas mistakes "vote" as "no."

ne2d: Whamdangler: In any event, Thomas voted for the politically conservative position in every one of the defining decisions.

I.e., 15 decisions chosen by that blogger out of the 67 from one term. I'm no fan of Thomas, but I think this notion that he sides with Scalia significantly more often than, say, Ginsburg sides with Breyer is overstated and not very helpful.

Thomas influences Scalia more than any other member of the court. Scalia is not independent and can be swayed. Those that think otherwise are simply ignorant of the court.

/or farking racist

My favorite Clarence Thomas quote:

"Who put this pubic hair in my Coke?"

followed closely by:

"You wanna watch Long Dong Silver?"

Whamdangler: El Chode: I think the articles entire premise is that out of the 4 8-1 decisions, Thomas was the "1" in 3 of them.

Yes, when it's a lost cause, Scalia lets him vote how he wants. Of course, it could be when Scalia mouths "Vote Yes" Thomas mistakes "vote" as "no."

Congratulations on having the most idiotic comment of the day on fark.

GAT_00: Could we have a Supreme Court thread that doesn't have KaponoFor3 and DamnYankees arguing with each other and ignoring everyone else?

/kidding, you two are often the most intelligent debate in these threads
//and it's more fun when Nabb1 is around.

I actually learn a lot from those three. Kudos, fellas.

El Chode: If anything, Thomas is fairly consistent in his approach regardless of political arguments, and I find it interesting that it's viewed as "Thomas always follows Scalia" as if Thomas is unable to make a choice that Scalia likes as well.

THIS. No matter what the wingnuts say Scalia does not have a consistent philosophy. Thomas does.

/this doesn't mean I agree with Thomas's decisions - I just respect him for keeping to his guns unlike Scalia who is intellectually dishonest

Did he wake up long enough to vote?

bravian: THIS. No matter what the wingnuts say Scalia does not have a consistent philosophy.

Consistent Philosophy how?

I argue that Scalia's Philosophy is "Whatever will help advance the Republican party."

It's inconsistent from a judicial standpoint, but consistent from a political standpoint.

I've never understood this "Clarence Thomas is Scalia's puppet" argument. If you have two rigid constructionist justices... obviously they're going to have similar philosophies and voting records. Thomas just happens to be incredibly, obstinately originalist, as opposed to Scalia's merely incredible textualism. I'm sure Ginsburg and Stevens have similar voting records.

I don't believe comparing similar voting records is a good measure of bankrupt judicial opinions. I do, however, view Thomas' decision that strip-searching a 13-year-old to make sure she didn't smuggle Advil into school is a perfect indicator of his moral bankruptcy.

McManus_brothers

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Supreme Court Judge.

I will say that all the judges and (high powered) lawyers I know are alcoholic, twice, divorced, seriously farked up people.

Fun to party with though.

I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.

Clarence Thomas on dishwashers

"Today there is much focus on our rights," "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."

I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?

Clarence Thomas on rights

UNC_Samurai: I don't believe comparing similar voting records is a good measure of bankrupt judicial opinions. I do, however, view Thomas' decision that strip-searching a 13-year-old to make sure she didn't smuggle Advil into school is a perfect indicator of his moral bankruptcy.

Thomas' judicial philosophy can best be described as "it's not the role of judges to judge things."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/manny_ramirez_am_i_in_trouble

bravian: Congratulations on having the most idiotic comment of the day on fark.

Well, I forgot to add the little smiley at the end of the statement. Unlike your statement about Thomas swaying Scalia....which I think IS the most idiotic comment on Fark today.

The Homer Tax: bravian: THIS. No matter what the wingnuts say Scalia does not have a consistent philosophy.

Consistent Philosophy how?

I argue that Scalia's Philosophy is "Whatever will help advance the Republican party."

Sounds fairly consistent to me.

(Though sometimes he'll do things that piss off the Republican Party by going too far right. His dissent in the teen strip search case seems like it might make a few GOPers think, ``Dude, not helping.')

andrewagill: The Homer Tax: bravian: THIS. No matter what the wingnuts say Scalia does not have a consistent philosophy.

Consistent Philosophy how?

I argue that Scalia's Philosophy is "Whatever will help advance the Republican party."

Sounds fairly consistent to me.

(Though sometimes he'll do things that piss off the Republican Party by going too far right. His dissent in the teen strip search case seems like it might make a few GOPers think, ``Dude, not helping.')

Sorry. I thought you said Thomas' philosophy.

McManus_brothers: I've never understood this "Clarence Thomas is Scalia's puppet" argument. If you have two rigid constructionist justices... obviously they're going to have similar philosophies and voting records. Thomas just happens to be incredibly, obstinately originalist, as opposed to Scalia's merely incredible textualism. I'm sure Ginsburg and Stevens have similar voting records.

It has to do with the fact that Scalia is usually the guy who writes the majority opinions. It's quite rare for Thomas to write the majority and for Scalia to simply concur. I'm having trouble thinking of a major case where that happened.

I have heard that in cases with 8 to 1 rulings he is the most common person as the 1. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing though.

bravian: El Chode: If anything, Thomas is fairly consistent in his approach regardless of political arguments, and I find it interesting that it's viewed as "Thomas always follows Scalia" as if Thomas is unable to make a choice that Scalia likes as well.

THIS. No matter what the wingnuts say Scalia does not have a consistent philosophy. Thomas does.

/this doesn't mean I agree with Thomas's decisions - I just respect him for keeping to his guns unlike Scalia who is intellectually dishonest

Originalist my ass! Also I think whamdangler is adding a bit o' flare to that post, like a good TFer

andrewagill: Sorry. I thought you said Thomas' philosophy.

No it's OK. I think we're on the same page here. Scalia sees his role as assisting the GOP at all costs. Thomas sees his role as "doing whatever I can to not actually have to do my job." Clarence Thomas is the Wally (from 'Dilbert') of the Supreme Court.

RemyDuron: I have heard that in cases with 8 to 1 rulings he is the most common person as the 1.

Maybe se's like the 'black sheep' (excuse the pun) of the Court. Maybe he is just trying to make a point. Thomas has an interesting life history, he must have some rationale behind his decisions.

DamnYankees: It has to do with the fact that Scalia is usually the guy who writes the majority opinions. It's quite rare for Thomas to write the majority and for Scalia to simply concur. I'm having trouble thinking of a major case where that happened.

Scalia just writes down whatever Thomas dictates to him.

While I think Thomas is probably unfairly maligned, "principled" does not mean "good." It depends on the principles.

vernonFL: Maybe se's like the 'black sheep' (excuse the pun) of the Court. Maybe he is just trying to make a point. Thomas has an interesting life history, he must have some rationale behind his decisions.

I was reading his bio on Wiki, apparently he was influenced by Ayn Rand and "The Fountainhead". That's enough to warp anyone's brain.

What an opinion written by Thomas might look like:

I lost whatever respect I might have had for him when he responded to a question about why he rarely asked questions during presentations by angrily saying "Questions? I don't have to ask any questions. Why should I ask questions?".

He sounded for all the world like Marion Barry. And not in a good way. Questioning the lawyers putting arguments before them is generally considered to be an important part of the job. At the very least, it demonstrates an understanding of the issues at hand - which may be why he avoids it.

That's a riot.

So what about the opinions he's written. I skimmed the article and that seems to be the basis of its argument: that Justice Thomas provides the most original and interesting perspectives on cases that the court decides.

Thomas seems like a Scalia toady, but he's actually much more of a nutball. Look for a case where he and Scalia are on the same side but Thomas writes a concurrence. Scalia's is typically well reasoned. Thomas's is wingbat bullshiat.

Argh2: I lost whatever respect I might have had for him when he responded to a question about why he rarely asked questions during presentations by angrily saying "Questions? I don't have to ask any questions. Why should I ask questions?".

He sounded for all the world like Marion Barry. And not in a good way. Questioning the lawyers putting arguments before them is generally considered to be an important part of the job. At the very least, it demonstrates an understanding of the issues at hand - which may be why he avoids it.

I sort of agree with him. Nothing comes of the question and answer session other than that the lawyers get bragging rights and a pen. It's just a circus. By the time it hits the Supreme Court the issues and sides have been well researched and written down. The judges decided how they were going to vote when they accepted the case on their docket.

Nicholas Urfe: Thomas seems like a Scalia toady, but he's actually much more of a nutball. Look for a case where he and Scalia are on the same side but Thomas writes a concurrence. Scalia's is typically well reasoned. Thomas's is wingbat bullshiat.

Really? I'd say it's the other way around.

Clarence Thomas is double plus good! Please send him a case of mango chutney.

I had a friend in law school who wrote a paper on Thomas' "natural law" philosophy for our Jurisprudence class. He claimed that, according to his research, Thomas got a bunch of Scalia's clerks second-hand, and that both the quantity and the quality of Thomas' written opinions improved at that time. I have no idea what my friend's sources were, but he's not a guy who would usually bullshiat me.

BMulligan: I had a friend in law school who wrote a paper on Thomas' "natural law" philosophy for our Jurisprudence class. He claimed that, according to his research, Thomas got a bunch of Scalia's clerks second-hand, and that both the quantity and the quality of Thomas' written opinions improved at that time. I have no idea what my friend's sources were, but he's not a guy who would usually bullshiat me.

It's no secret that clerks write most U.S. appellate judges' opinions.

The only award Thomas deserve is for Excellence in Douchebaggery. That was the only guy in the SCOTUS that said it was ok to stripsearch a 13-year old girl for Advil. (Paraphrasing) "Great! Now all the girls will know where to hide it!"

Nicholas Urfe: It's no secret that clerks write most U.S. appellate judges' opinions.

And the worst part of it is, I'm not even supposed to be here today!

Donald_McRonald: Nicholas Urfe: It's no secret that clerks write most U.S. appellate judges' opinions.

And the worst part of it is, I'm not even supposed to be here today!

Thomas WOULD be the one to have sex with the dead guy in the restroom.

He got Heller v D.C. correct


...any Justice who did not is a nutball ideologue who should be inpeached.

Phil Herup: He got Heller v D.C. correct


...any Justice who did not is a nutball ideologue who should be inpeached.

He also got Kelo right for all the right reasons

He is African American but not a Democrat so its okay to use stereotypes when describing him.

MickCollins: He is African American but not a Democrat so its okay to use stereotypes when describing him.

Oh, did I miss the Uncle Tom reference or are you projecting?

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

DamnYankees: Damn that separation of Church and State.

We would have gotten away with it too... if it weren't for those meddling founding fathers!

Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

Wow, citation? That is awful.

Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

I do know he claimed, despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, that only one innocent person (proven after the fact) has been executed. Scalia is a sack of shiat that has no problem lying if it furthers his beliefs.

Jacobin: I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.



They are called MEGALOMANIACS





////

Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

It would be empathetic not to execute someone just because they were innocent.

brainiac-dumdum: It would be empathetic not to execute someone just because they were innocent.



We should never execute people. For any reason.


Ever.

Sabyen91: Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

I do know he claimed, despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, that only one innocent person (proven after the fact) has been executed. Scalia is a sack of shiat that has no problem lying if it furthers his beliefs.

Then of course there's his support of torture so long as it happened before a trial so it wouldn't be punishment, his site of "24" in ruling, and his homophobia.

Phil Herup: Jacobin: I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.



They are called MEGALOMANIACS

////

That post was pointless and not at all accurate. Nice job, Phil :)

Thomas is a theocrat. That's independence from reality.

The recent Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case about the right to cross-examine forensic experts who prepare lab reports for submission as evidence was one where I think Scalia and Thomas got it right.

Scalia said in his opinion, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty,"

"A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure - or have an incentive - to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution,"

Phil Herup: brainiac-dumdum: It would be empathetic not to execute someone just because they were innocent.



We should never execute people. For any reason.


Ever.

ramen

Can we have this guy to pray hard enough so God do something regarding this most intellectually independent judge any time soon?



Or does it only work for liberal leaning judges?

By the way, this article is shiat. Though I don't much like Kennedy anybody with a funtioning brain cell knows he is the most intellectually independent.

Sabyen91: That post was pointless and not at all accurate. Nice job, Phil :)


Oh yeah.... what was I thinking ?

Jairzinho: Can we have this guy to pray hard enough so God do something regarding this most intellectually independent judge any time soon?



Or does it only work for liberal leaning judges?

His prayer must have hit Rehnquist before hitting Ginsburg.

Phil Herup: Sabyen91: That post was pointless and not at all accurate. Nice job, Phil :)


Oh yeah.... what was I thinking ?

I don't ever know what you are thinking, whether you are serious or joking. It is alien to me.

Sabyen91: I don't ever know what you are thinking, whether you are serious or joking. It is alien to me.


Most likely... it is the opposite of whatever you are thinking. Surely every now and then we will agree on a few things, but stick with the opposite thing most of the time.

Phil Herup: Sabyen91: I don't ever know what you are thinking, whether you are serious or joking. It is alien to me.


Most likely... it is the opposite of whatever you are thinking. Surely every now and then we will agree on a few things, but stick with the opposite thing most of the time.

Sweet. I will take your advice. You are probably right.

/For once!

Phil Herup: Sabyen91: I don't ever know what you are thinking, whether you are serious or joking. It is alien to me.


Most likely... it is the opposite of whatever you are thinking. Surely every now and then we will agree on a few things, but stick with the opposite thing most of the time.

yer against the death penalty.

it's a start

NewportBarGuy: img89.imageshack.us

Too bad it's not a "verified account" :(

Nicholas Urfe: BMulligan: I had a friend in law school who wrote a paper on Thomas' "natural law" philosophy for our Jurisprudence class. He claimed that, according to his research, Thomas got a bunch of Scalia's clerks second-hand, and that both the quantity and the quality of Thomas' written opinions improved at that time. I have no idea what my friend's sources were, but he's not a guy who would usually bullshiat me.

It's no secret that clerks write most U.S. appellate judges' opinions.

Of course. That wasn't my point. My point was that Thomas (allegedly) took Scalia's sloppy seconds - and it still improved the quality of his opinions.

BMulligan: Of course. That wasn't my point. My point was that Thomas (allegedly) took Scalia's sloppy seconds - and it still improved the quality of his opinions.

You know who else was a law clerk for Clarence Thomas?



\scary, innit

brainiac-dumdum: yer against the death penalty.

it's a start



I was against the death penalty long before you were before it.

Phil Herup: brainiac-dumdum: yer against the death penalty.

it's a start



I was against the death penalty long before you were before it.

wat?

brainiac-dumdum: Phil Herup: brainiac-dumdum: yer against the death penalty.

it's a start



I was against the death penalty long before you were before it.

wat?

I think he just said he isn't really against the death penalty.

I have always been against the death penalty.

You can not grant your gov't officials the power to execute their own people.

El Chode, clearly to win Clarence Thomas, you have to be the most intellectually independent Supreme Court Justice.

Get to it.

dbirchall: El Chode, clearly to win Clarence Thomas, you have to be the most intellectually independent Supreme Court Justice.

Get to it.

Thomas LIKES Kennedy?

Not even slightly surprising. Even Scalia occasionally sides with reason. Thomas never does.

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Not even slightly surprising. Even Scalia occasionally sides with reason. Thomas never does.

Kelo v. New London
Gonzales v. Raich

Two cases I know of where IMHO Uncle Thomas made not only a good decision, but a better one than every other justice.

elchip: Gonzales v. Raich

I don't understand. Neither of those were unanimous. I was expecting 8-1 decisions when you said he made better decisions than every other justice.

Sabyen91: I don't understand. Neither of those were unanimous. I was expecting 8-1 decisions when you said he made better decisions than every other justice.

He wrote a separate (and more harshly-worded) dissent, he didn't just hitch a ride on another opinion.

The end result is the same, yeah, but the reasoning was different.

I've actually heard it works the other way. Scalia is more willing to moderate his views and Thomas convinces him to move right.

elchip: Sabyen91: I don't understand. Neither of those were unanimous. I was expecting 8-1 decisions when you said he made better decisions than every other justice.

He wrote a separate (and more harshly-worded) dissent, he didn't just hitch a ride on another opinion.

The end result is the same, yeah, but the reasoning was different.

Thomas wants to end the interstate commerce clause at is currently known. Is that what you like about him? At least he was ballsy enough to cut the Scalia umbilical cord.

Fatslave: I've actually heard it works the other way. Scalia is more willing to moderate his views and Thomas convinces him to move right.

Scalia listens to nobody but the voices in his head.

Sabyen91: Thomas wants to end the interstate commerce clause at is currently known. Is that what you like about him?

I'm pretty much cool with using the interstate commerce clause to keep people safe from dangerous products, etc.

I think it's a pretty dumb excuse for things like "preventing someone from taking a teenager across a state line to get an abortion" and "preventing someone from growing marijuana in their backyard for personal use when it's legal in their state."

elchip: Sabyen91: Thomas wants to end the interstate commerce clause at is currently known. Is that what you like about him?

I'm pretty much cool with using the interstate commerce clause to keep people safe from dangerous products, etc.

I think it's a pretty dumb excuse for things like "preventing someone from taking a teenager across a state line to get an abortion" and "preventing someone from growing marijuana in their backyard for personal use when it's legal in their state."

I read "Gonzales v. Raich" again. Thomas made great points. It shocks the hell out of me.

ne2d: Whamdangler: In any event, Thomas voted for the politically conservative position in every one of the defining decisions.

I.e., 15 decisions chosen by that blogger out of the 67 from one term. I'm no fan of Thomas, but I think this notion that he sides with Scalia significantly more often than, say, Ginsburg sides with Breyer is overstated and not very helpful.

THIS.

Not only could you "prove" almost any stupid theory if you get to cherry-pick what counts and what doesn't, but the idea that Thomas is Scalia's "yes'm, master" man is farkin' racist, and insultingly so.

Firstly, they're both cut from the same judicial cloth, so it takes no conspiracy or collusion for them to vote the same most of the time. No more than it would for two Liberal Justices.

Second, wtf is up with assuming that if Scalia and Thomas vote the same, it's because Thomas is copying Scalia? Any correlation, caused by cherry--picking or not, only shows correlation, not causation, or especially DIRECTION of causation. The unstated assumption is that it must be from the White Guy down to the Black Guy - because the Black Guy is the inferior being. Racist.

The belief that Thomas is some sort of out-of-his-depth "me-too!" copy-cat is - as far as I've read - unsupported by anything but conspiracy-theorist-farked-up bad statistical arguing and ignorant speculation based on his not feeling any need to grab camera-time during question periods.. If anything, the stories I've read describe Thomas as one of the members most capable of pulling other Justices from opposition into agreement - that he's commonly on the 5 side of 5-4 decisions because other justices copy HIM.

bmasso: ne2d: Whamdangler: In any event, Thomas voted for the politically conservative position in every one of the defining decisions.

I.e., 15 decisions chosen by that blogger out of the 67 from one term. I'm no fan of Thomas, but I think this notion that he sides with Scalia significantly more often than, say, Ginsburg sides with Breyer is overstated and not very helpful.

THIS.

Not only could you "prove" almost any stupid theory if you get to cherry-pick what counts and what doesn't, but the idea that Thomas is Scalia's "yes'm, master" man is farkin' racist, and insultingly so.

Firstly, they're both cut from the same judicial cloth, so it takes no conspiracy or collusion for them to vote the same most of the time. No more than it would for two Liberal Justices.

Second, wtf is up with assuming that if Scalia and Thomas vote the same, it's because Thomas is copying Scalia? Any correlation, caused by cherry--picking or not, only shows correlation, not causation, or especially DIRECTION of causation. The unstated assumption is that it must be from the White Guy down to the Black Guy - because the Black Guy is the inferior being. Racist.

The belief that Thomas is some sort of out-of-his-depth "me-too!" copy-cat is - as far as I've read - unsupported by anything but conspiracy-theorist-farked-up bad statistical arguing and ignorant speculation based on his not feeling any need to grab camera-time during question periods.. If anything, the stories I've read describe Thomas as one of the members most capable of pulling other Justices from opposition into agreement - that he's commonly on the 5 side of 5-4 decisions because other justices copy HIM.

Thomas is out of his depth. I don't think he's a "me too copycat." And my opinion isn't based on any kind of statistical analysis. It is based on having read numerous of his opinions, and compared them with those of his colleagues. His writing is ideological polemic, not legal analysis.

Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

Wow. Do you have a citation for that quote? Far as I'm concerned, that's impeachment worthy, right there. Not that that would happen these days. The idiot-right would clamber to his defense.

Wait, we ARE talking abou the Clarence Thomas that hasn't uttered a single word in any case proceeding in almost 3 years, right?

Whamdangler: If anything, he is BY FAR the least independent.

Well, he was independent in his support of child molestation by schools.

DamnYankees: conservatives believe that doctrines like substantive due process, the exclusionary rule, and a high wall separating church and state aren't merely wrong but overstep the limited role of judges and endanger the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Damn that separation of Church and State.

I agree. That part of the Constitution is really hard to get ar- ...

Oh, wait; the separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution. It was invented by judges.

The Constitution said "don't create the equivalent of the Church of England in America" and "everybody can worship however they want without government interference."

gimmeafarkinname 2009-07-02 08:10:16 PM
Who gives a shiat about who votes with who, there's always going to be ideological soulmates on the court. Show me some writing, whether for the majority or the dissenters that illustrates a farking first rate mind and I'm O.k. with you.

That goes for anybody.

You don't even have to be idealogical soulmates.

I used to be a City Councilman in a suburb of Houston. We had one other fellow on Council with whom I didn't get along with well. We had differing political philosophies and personalities that clashed so we didn't even talk with each other outside of official business. Yet we voted alike nearly all the time, including votes that were 5 - 2 against us.

This was for two simple reasons. One...we were the only two Councilmembers who read every word that came across our desk (took loads of time; I spent 1200 - 1500 hours a year on Council work in a small town). Two....we both realized that any decision from City Council is a legal precedent and considered future consequences of our votes.

FishingWithFredo: The Constitution said "don't create the equivalent of the Church of England in America" and "everybody can worship however they want without government interference."

Congratulations. You have just stated what "Separation of church and state" means.

So keep your damned religion out of my government, and we'll be happy.

Looks like Thomas nailed it in the Raich case. Anyone who dissented in Kelo is a Hero.

captain_heroic44: Jacobin: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Antonin Scalia

I like to throw that one in there from time to time when discussing the abject lunatics who parade around in black robes pretending to be erudite messengers of truth and wisdom from gawd, when in fact they are simply clinically insane.

Wow. Do you have a citation for that quote? Far as I'm concerned, that's impeachment worthy, right there. Not that that would happen these days. The idiot-right would clamber to his defense.

No, there is no citation for that quote as it is entirely fabricated and thrown around by those on the left to smear Scalia.

elchip: I'm pretty much cool with using the interstate commerce clause to keep people safe from dangerous products, etc.

I think it's a pretty dumb excuse for things like "preventing someone from taking a teenager across a state line to get an abortion" and "preventing someone from growing marijuana in their backyard for personal use when it's legal in their state."

That is the difference between Thomas and almost all of the rest of the Court. Thomas is going to be consistent in applying the Commerce Clause at all costs. The left wing of the court would be more than happy to use it when it suits a result to their liking (product safety, civil rights) and ignore it when it doesn't (marijuana, abortion).

The main difference between Scalia and Thomas is that Scalia will bite his tongue and take a position he doesn't necessarily agree with in the interest of preserving stare decisis. Thomas will ignore any precedent he feels was wrongly reached.

ps. Scalia's closest friend on the court is Ginsburg. As much as some people hate those on one side or the other, the two of them are prime example of how each side feels the other has a legitimate viewpoint and at the very least respects them for it.

McManus_brothers: If you have two rigid constructionist justices

Neither one follows that particular judicial philosophy. As loud as they are when advocating, it they are the two worst Justices when it comes to protecting the rights of the citizenry over the invasive powers of the government.

Murkanen: they are the two worst Justices when it comes to protecting the rights of the citizenry over the invasive powers of the government.



You are referring to Ginsburg and Souter?