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?