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!