If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABA Journal)   Corrected transcript reveals the other five words Justice Thomas spoke earlier this month. Streak without asking a question remains intact   (abajournal.com) divider line 12
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1349 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



12 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-25 10:42:50 AM
*nod*
 
2013-01-25 10:43:43 AM
"Clarence wanna go nigh nigh"
 
2013-01-25 10:45:30 AM
Normally I have no problem with anyone listening more than they talk. This case is different.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:39 AM
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove the world right.
 
2013-01-25 11:11:39 AM
Anybody know what question he asked on 2/22/06? I found a pair of transcripts from that day, but I couldn't find any statements by Thomas in there, let alone questions. Rather than dig through every case they heard that day, I thought I'd just ask.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:57 AM
The only question Clarence Thomas asks is: "Hey, Antie. How are you voting?"
 
2013-01-25 11:31:09 AM

BeesNuts: Anybody know what question he asked on 2/22/06? I found a pair of transcripts from that day, but I couldn't find any statements by Thomas in there, let alone questions. Rather than dig through every case they heard that day, I thought I'd just ask.


I can give you a pretty good summary as I was there. Basically Thomas felt that the guy arguing for the Virginia law was understating the threat of a burning cross. So Thomas brought up it's meaning in the context of the KKK and past lynchings to say that a burning cross isn't just a burning cross but a real and immediate threat. From my memory his questions were all rhetorical along the lines of "don't you think a person would see this as a dire threat." He also asked about the age of the law, I suppose to set the context of the times when the law was written.

Back then I went to a lot of SC orals and this was a singular moment. You could feel the entire room get excited and the other justices were a bit taken aback. That said, the complaints against Thomas not speaking in orals is a total bullshiat charge. I personally think orals are interesting but not really that important to a case's resolution. Yeah he leans his chair way the fark back so that it looks like he's sleeping, but he's not and it wouldn't really matter if he did. Thomas has had a huge impact on the Court via his opinions. He's not dumb and he's not Scalia's tool. In my view he's smarter than Scalia and in my ideological view he's way more dangerous than Scalia. Scalia is a bigoted hack and his arrogance totally undercuts his effectiveness as a coalition builder on the Court. Thomas actually has principled viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are, in my view, completely bonkers.
 
2013-01-25 01:28:40 PM
Luckily shotguns can't kill toddlers en masse.
 
2013-01-25 01:42:04 PM

yequalsy: I can give you a pretty good summary as I was there. Basically Thomas felt that the guy arguing for the Virginia law was understating the threat of a burning cross. So Thomas brought up it's meaning in the context of the KKK and past lynchings to say that a burning cross isn't just a burning cross but a real and immediate threat. From my memory his questions were all rhetorical along the lines of "don't you think a person would see this as a dire threat." He also asked about the age of the law, I suppose to set the context of the times when the law was written.

Back then I went to a lot of SC orals and this was a singular moment. You could feel the entire room get excited and the other justices were a bit taken aback. That said, the complaints against Thomas not speaking in orals is a total bullshiat charge. I personally think orals are interesting but not really that important to a case's resolution. Yeah he leans his chair way the fark back so that it looks like he's sleeping, but he's not and it wouldn't really matter if he did. Thomas has had a huge impact on the Court via his opinions. He's not dumb and he's not Scalia's tool. In my view he's smarter than Scalia and in my ideological view he's way more dangerous than Scalia. Scalia is a bigoted hack and his arrogance totally undercuts his effectiveness as a coalition builder on the Court. Thomas actually has principled viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are, in my view, completely bonkers.


Interesting perspective.

I always placed him somewhere between the 'screw you, I got mine' group and an Uncle Tom that figured out a way to skate through life and doesn't want to get noticed. Having read various items he and his wife have written I always get that weird feeling from him. Kind of like an obviously gay man who is living a heterosexual life in active denial of who he really is. Kind of like Marcus Bachmann. I am just waiting for them to snap out of it and do a complete 180 in their life.
 
2013-01-25 03:13:04 PM

dehehn: Luckily shotguns can't kill toddlers en masse.


Say what?
 
2013-01-25 03:24:57 PM
i1048.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-25 08:32:12 PM

yequalsy: BeesNuts: Anybody know what question he asked on 2/22/06? I found a pair of transcripts from that day, but I couldn't find any statements by Thomas in there, let alone questions. Rather than dig through every case they heard that day, I thought I'd just ask.

I can give you a pretty good summary as I was there. Basically Thomas felt that the guy arguing for the Virginia law was understating the threat of a burning cross. So Thomas brought up it's meaning in the context of the KKK and past lynchings to say that a burning cross isn't just a burning cross but a real and immediate threat. From my memory his questions were all rhetorical along the lines of "don't you think a person would see this as a dire threat." He also asked about the age of the law, I suppose to set the context of the times when the law was written.

Back then I went to a lot of SC orals and this was a singular moment. You could feel the entire room get excited and the other justices were a bit taken aback. That said, the complaints against Thomas not speaking in orals is a total bullshiat charge. I personally think orals are interesting but not really that important to a case's resolution. Yeah he leans his chair way the fark back so that it looks like he's sleeping, but he's not and it wouldn't really matter if he did. Thomas has had a huge impact on the Court via his opinions. He's not dumb and he's not Scalia's tool. In my view he's smarter than Scalia and in my ideological view he's way more dangerous than Scalia. Scalia is a bigoted hack and his arrogance totally undercuts his effectiveness as a coalition builder on the Court. Thomas actually has principled viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are, in my view, completely bonkers.


Tldr. Kidding that was interesting. Thanks.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report