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