Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   In his dissent in today's Arizona voter ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Bush v. Gore - a case that was supposed to be "limited to the present circumstances"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line 169
    More: Asinine, supreme courts, objections  
•       •       •

3053 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2013 at 10:34 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-17 06:03:41 PM  
thomas is an appallingly bad justice who should've been impeached years ago for tax evasion.
 
2013-06-17 06:08:10 PM  
When you think about it, aren't all circumstances current circumstances?
 
2013-06-17 06:14:53 PM  
I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.
 
2013-06-17 06:20:52 PM  
Oh yeah! Fire up the lawsuits, every election can be contested now.
 
2013-06-17 06:25:08 PM  
How did Black Mr. Potatohead ever get nominated? I don't get it. Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.

Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?
 
2013-06-17 06:25:38 PM  
P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."
 
2013-06-17 06:33:37 PM  
Has anyone called him an uncle tom yet?
 
2013-06-17 06:38:16 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?


That's a low blow, Loblaw!
 
2013-06-17 07:19:58 PM  

Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."


Not without direction from the justice. He guided, read, and approved it prior to it being published, and if he didn't, he really and truly is the worst SC justice of all time.
 
2013-06-17 07:25:25 PM  

Kimothy: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

Not without direction from the justice. He guided, read, and approved it prior to it being published, and if he didn't, he really and truly is the worst SC justice of all time.


It's cause he's blah isn't it??!?

/someone had post it
 
2013-06-17 07:39:49 PM  

whither_apophis: Kimothy: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

Not without direction from the justice. He guided, read, and approved it prior to it being published, and if he didn't, he really and truly is the worst SC justice of all time.

It's cause he's blah isn't it??!?

/someone had post it


Thurgood Marshall brought justice, intelligence, and dignity to the bench.

Clarence Thomas is just an idiot.
 
2013-06-17 07:56:14 PM  
Is that the guy that put pubes on a can of Coke and married a white woman? It's been so long, I can't remember.
 
2013-06-17 07:57:15 PM  

Kimothy: Clarence Thomas is just an idiot.


Yep.
 
2013-06-17 08:06:31 PM  

Kimothy: whither_apophis: Kimothy: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

Not without direction from the justice. He guided, read, and approved it prior to it being published, and if he didn't, he really and truly is the worst SC justice of all time.

It's cause he's blah isn't it??!?

/someone had post it

Thurgood Marshall brought justice, intelligence, and dignity to the bench.

Clarence Thomas is just an idiot.


yeah, pretty much.
 
2013-06-17 08:12:54 PM  
I know this might go over the head of some of the Fark scholars here, but Thomas here didn't cite Bush v. Gore for any of the holdings that came from that case; rather, he's referring to a legal precedent that dates back to 1892 and the Constitution, which the Court most recently recited in Bush v. Gore.  Here's the quote:


"This Court has recognized, however, that "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892))."

The reference to the case is completely appropriate in the context Thomas presents it.
 
2013-06-17 08:14:53 PM  

Asa Phelps: Has anyone called him an uncle tom yet?


Just you.
 
2013-06-17 08:16:05 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: How did Black Mr. Potatohead ever get nominated? I don't get it. Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.

Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?

Black

Mr. Potatohead?
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-17 08:16:40 PM  
i1048.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-17 08:17:11 PM  

BravadoGT: I know this might go over the head of some of the Fark scholars here, but Thomas here didn't cite Bush v. Gore for any of the holdings that came from that case; rather, he's referring to a legal precedent that dates back to 1892 and the Constitution, which the Court most recently recited in Bush v. Gore.  Here's the quote:


"This Court has recognized, however, that "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892))."

The reference to the case is completely appropriate in the context Thomas presents it.


Cant ruin the outrage now can we asshole?
 
2013-06-17 08:18:48 PM  
Some scholars have argued that the lack of Supreme Court citation of the major case is evidence that it was based on shoddy legal reasoning.

images.wikia.com
 
2013-06-17 08:19:28 PM  

Mentat: Asa Phelps: Has anyone called him an uncle tom yet?

Just you.


In this thread? Yes. In reality where? No.
 
2013-06-17 08:21:03 PM  

timujin: ecmoRandomNumbers: How did Black Mr. Potatohead ever get nominated? I don't get it. Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.

Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?

Black Mr. Potatohead?
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 453x681]


He needs his ANGRY eyes.
 
2013-06-17 08:33:46 PM  
Just because Bush v. Gore was limited to the "present circumstances" don't mean that the case cannot be cited to support a particular legal point.  That case has been cited and followed by federal courts before.
 
2013-06-17 08:35:25 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-17 08:35:40 PM  
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to pen a really stupid dissenting opinion and remove all doubt
 
2013-06-17 08:40:01 PM  
Yeah, he's a Goddamned disgrace.  And so is his wife.
 
2013-06-17 08:52:02 PM  
It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.
 
2013-06-17 09:10:13 PM  

Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.


Don't forget about those massive tax cuts for rich people, all the jobs they failed to create and the crippling income disparity they did create.
 
2013-06-17 09:18:57 PM  

Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.


Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.
 
2013-06-17 09:23:57 PM  
How many times has Thomas disagreed with Scalia?
 
2013-06-17 09:29:09 PM  

cman: Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.

Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.


9/11 would almost certainly have happened.

Katrina wouldn't have, Gore's weather machine would have stopped it.
 
2013-06-17 09:33:04 PM  

cman: Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.

Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.


I think it's still safe to say we probably would have avoided invading Iraq. And the tax cuts. And Medicare part D.


vernonFL: How many times has Thomas disagreed with Scalia?


There was another recent one where they disagreed but I can't remember what it was.
 
2013-06-17 09:52:56 PM  

fusillade762: And Medicare part D.


That probably would have still happened, but we might have made an attempt to pay for it.

fusillade762: I think it's still safe to say we probably would have avoided invading Iraq. And the tax cuts.


Yeah these probably wouldn't have happened.
 
2013-06-17 10:00:02 PM  
In before "u libs  still aren't over the 2000 election" derp.
 
2013-06-17 10:30:11 PM  

Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."


And it's a dissenting opinion as well. If you get upset about a dissenting opinion, you really need to get a life.
 
2013-06-17 10:33:16 PM  

JerkyMeat: [i1048.photobucket.com image 640x409]


I don't care what you guys say he was awesome in the Lethal Weapons
 
2013-06-17 10:37:15 PM  

cman: Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.

Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.


Gore would likely have continued Clinton's campaign against al Qaeda, instead of dropping it and focusing resources on fighting porn.
 
2013-06-17 10:38:25 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: JerkyMeat: [i1048.photobucket.com image 640x409]

I don't care what you guys say he was awesome in the Lethal Weapons


It just seems like he is getting to old for this shaky.
 
2013-06-17 10:39:01 PM  

tinderfitles: shifty lookin bleeder: JerkyMeat: [i1048.photobucket.com image 640x409]

I don't care what you guys say he was awesome in the Lethal Weapons

It just seems like he is getting to old for this shaky.


Shiat
 
2013-06-17 10:40:44 PM  

cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?


He wouldn't have dismantled Clinton's intelligence teams and actually would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings?
 
2013-06-17 10:42:41 PM  
In Bush v. Gore, Poppy was paid, with interest, for all the heartache he endured in actually presenting Thomas as a viable Supreme Court nomination.
 
2013-06-17 10:42:59 PM  

tinderfitles: tinderfitles: shifty lookin bleeder: JerkyMeat: [i1048.photobucket.com image 640x409]

I don't care what you guys say he was awesome in the Lethal Weapons

It just seems like he is getting to old for this shaky.

Shiat


That's ok, Shaky's my brother.  Happens all the time.
 
2013-06-17 10:45:06 PM  

theorellior: cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

He wouldn't have dismantled Clinton's intelligence teams and actually would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings?


But lockbox!

/Still love watching those old SNL sketches
 
2013-06-17 10:47:13 PM  

theorellior: cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

He wouldn't have dismantled Clinton's intelligence teams and actually would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings?


I don't know if he would actually have read them all, but at least he would have been capable of reading them.
 
2013-06-17 10:49:06 PM  
You would think the conservatives would be ignoring Bush vs. Gore since it singlehandedly destroyed the party.  If Gore was rightfully appointed, Dubya wouldn't be such a laughingstock.  Of course, that's just playing What If.  All we do know was that Dubya was appointed, failed to stop the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the nation, quadrupled gas prices, and allowed the first Black President ever.

Good job, Republicans. ;)
 
2013-06-17 10:54:25 PM  

cman: Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.

Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.


The theory is that the Clinton admin did in fact warn GWB that he really needs to take these daily security briefings regarding AQ really really farking serious. GWB&co. kind of blew it off until 9/11.

Who knows, maybe Gore would have stayed on top of it and the intelligence community disrupted it.

/arm chair politicians are stupid.
 
2013-06-17 10:57:04 PM  
Thomas can eat a bag of dicks.
 
2013-06-17 10:58:44 PM  

cman: Mugato: It would have really sucked if Gore was appointed instead of Bush. We would have probably had those two pesky towers, two countries would have been left un-invaded. Our glorious Patriot Act would be but a dream.

Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

That is right there a hyperpartisan statement.

You may not realize it but it is.


After Al Qaida attacked the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered airstrikes against Al Qaida camps in Sudan and Afghanistan, something nearly every Republican snidely referred to as, "Operation Wag The Dog."

One of Bush's first actions as Commander-in-Chief was to replace General Hugh Shelton, the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Army Special Forces officer with extensive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency experience, with General Richard Myers, an Air Force ex-fighter jock (like Bush) and ICBM silo slob who still viewed Russia as the USA's greatest threat, and whose pet project was reviving the Cold War-era Star Wars program.  He was an absolutely worthless CJCS who was completely out of his element dealing with Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
2013-06-17 10:59:28 PM  

Alphakronik: Thomas can eat a bag of dicks.


Only if his wife is paid to lobby for dick eating.
 
2013-06-17 11:01:45 PM  

Sgt Otter: One of Bush's first actions as Commander-in-Chief was to replace General Hugh Shelton, the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Army Special Forces officer with extensive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency experience, with General Richard Myers, an Air Force ex-fighter jock (like Bush) and ICBM silo slob who still viewed Russia as the USA's greatest threat, and whose pet project was reviving the Cold War-era Star Wars program. He was an absolutely worthless CJCS who was completely out of his element dealing with Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Iraq.


What was Condoleeza Rice's dissertation in? Military politics in Czechoslovakia. Perfect choice for the head of the NSA in 2001.
 
2013-06-17 11:02:09 PM  

Aarontology: When you think about it, aren't all circumstances current circumstances?


well, one of the many shiatty things about the bush v gore decision is that it was supposed to be "limited" to the current circumstances, which goes against hundreds of years of common law.
 
2013-06-17 11:03:32 PM  
There's stiff competition for Worst Supreme Court Justice, Ever. But he is certainly in the running.

\is this your pube?
 
2013-06-17 11:03:47 PM  

Alphakronik: Thomas can eat a bag of dicks.


Party at my house the day he either retires or dies.
 
2013-06-17 11:07:38 PM  

king of vegas: Alphakronik: Thomas can eat a bag of dicks.

Party at my house the day he either retires or dies.


will there be bags of dicks in the mashed potatoes?
 
2013-06-17 11:08:43 PM  

sammyk: The theory is that the Clinton admin did in fact warn GWB that he really needs to take these daily security briefings regarding AQ really really farking serious. GWB&co. kind of blew it off until 9/11.

Who knows, maybe Gore would have stayed on top of it and the intelligence community disrupted it.

/arm chair politicians are stupid.


It's possible - we were still trying to get out of the ABM and rattling sabres at China (remember that spy plan nonsense) when Ahmed Shah Massoud was assassinated on Sept 10.
 
2013-06-17 11:08:54 PM  

BravadoGT: I know this might go over the head of some of the Fark scholars here, but Thomas here didn't cite Bush v. Gore for any of the holdings that came from that case; rather, he's referring to a legal precedent that dates back to 1892 and the Constitution, which the Court most recently recited in Bush v. Gore.  Here's the quote:


"This Court has recognized, however, that "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892))."

The reference to the case is completely appropriate in the context Thomas presents it.


Thomas didn't have to point to Bush v. Gore for this otherwise unremarkable point of law. Weird that he did.
 
2013-06-17 11:09:49 PM  

Evil High Priest: There's stiff competition for Worst Supreme Court Justice, Ever. But he is certainly in the running.

\is this your pube?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-17 11:11:42 PM  

cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?


I can't believe it myself, but Imma agree with cman this time.

I don't know why that talking point gets floated. 9/11 would certainly still have happened. I hated Bush, and thought he was a lousy president, but OBL and Al-Qaeda mostly just hated the U.S. I'm reasonably sure they were US political party-agnostic.
 
2013-06-17 11:14:29 PM  
Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.
 
2013-06-17 11:14:55 PM  

Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."


Respondeat Superior

If I release a design, or an ECO, or a technical document at work, it's on me.  I don't get to pass responsibility because someone that works for me did the work.  I ok'd it, my signature is the last one on the release paperwork, and I'm in charge of that particular effort.  It's on me, every time, no matter what.  I think asking the same level of accountability from a SC Justice is reasonable.
 
2013-06-17 11:15:40 PM  
I thought justice Thomas didn't believe in stare decisis.
 
2013-06-17 11:19:09 PM  

FlashHarry: well, one of the many shiatty things about the bush v gore decision is that it was supposed to be "limited" to the current circumstances, which goes against hundreds of years of common law.


The Supreme Court doesn't like to make waves very often. Maybe once a decade on average they'll make a landmark ruling. In Bush v Gore, they ruled not so much on Constitutional ground as they were trying to find a way to make the problem go away. They saw it as bad for the country to have the election dragged on for months and possibly into the time prescribed by the Constitution for the meeting of the Electoral College.  It's like when Ford pardoned Nixon so the country could move on instead of being tied up with the criminal activities of its leader. Which would have been a good idea if it wasn't for the fact that it sent signals to those with their hands and the levers of power that there is a different set of rules for them and they're rather laxly enforced.

Those in control don't want to see anything like Greece, Brazil, or Turkey happening in the US. Look at how they flipped out about the Occupy movement, which given time would have collapsed on itself. The idea is to keep things moving so the wheels keep on spinning, the human cogs that make up the public keep on turning, and the cream off the top of productivity keeps on being skimmed off for those at the top of the pyramid.
 
2013-06-17 11:20:02 PM  
Can anyone here tell me why I should be worked up about a passing citation that appears in a dissenting opinion?
 
2013-06-17 11:21:06 PM  

Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.


Okay. Show your work. Exactly how did you reach this conclusion?
 
2013-06-17 11:22:53 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.


Thomas may be incompetent, but he's also a sexual harasser. He's more like Barry Zuckerkorn.
 
2013-06-17 11:23:56 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?

I can't believe it myself, but Imma agree with cman this time.

I don't know why that talking point gets floated. 9/11 would certainly still have happened. I hated Bush, and thought he was a lousy president, but OBL and Al-Qaeda mostly just hated the U.S. I'm reasonably sure they were US political party-agnostic.


The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.
 
2013-06-17 11:24:36 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.

Okay. Show your work. Exactly how did you reach this conclusion?


I thought about the various justices we have had on the Supreme Court.  Then I thought about Clarence Thomas.  Then I noticed that he was far more stupid than any of the others.

It was his lack of intellect, I think, that really tipped me off.  I don't suppose that you would have noticed that, though.
 
2013-06-17 11:26:48 PM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.

Okay. Show your work. Exactly how did you reach this conclusion?

I thought about the various justices we have had on the Supreme Court.  Then I thought about Clarence Thomas.  Then I noticed that he was far more stupid than any of the others.

It was his lack of intellect, I think, that really tipped me off.  I don't suppose that you would have noticed that, though.


All the justices? You read their opinions? Read into their backgrounds, education, how they happened to get to the Court? Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?
 
2013-06-17 11:28:19 PM  
The decision was to be limited to present circumstances, so it should not be cited as precedent.  Thomas wasn't citing the decision, he was actually referring to a previous ruling.  This is included in the full citation, which the article chops off in sloppy yellow journalistic style.  It's standard practice for the Supreme Court to cite the last case they used a precedent before the original precedent, that's all he was doing.  There was seriously nothing wrong with this.

That said, Thomas is the worst Supreme Court justice to have graced the bench.  There have been bigger assholes and dumber people, to be sure, but none so useless and without gumption or even a perverse sort of honor.
 
2013-06-17 11:29:54 PM  

Sgt Otter: He was an absolutely worthless CJCS who was completely out of his element dealing with Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Iraq.


so pretty much like Wolfowitz and the rest of that clown posse.
 
2013-06-17 11:30:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: Just because Bush v. Gore was limited to the "present circumstances" don't mean that the case cannot be cited to support a particular legal point.  That case has been cited and followed by federal courts before.


Did you forget what login you were posting under? That's actually not a completely moronic comment.
 
2013-06-17 11:30:17 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.

Okay. Show your work. Exactly how did you reach this conclusion?

I thought about the various justices we have had on the Supreme Court.  Then I thought about Clarence Thomas.  Then I noticed that he was far more stupid than any of the others.

It was his lack of intellect, I think, that really tipped me off.  I don't suppose that you would have noticed that, though.

All the justices? You read their opinions? Read into their backgrounds, education, how they happened to get to the Court? Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?


marshall was still around during that period right? hard to argue with him, he was at least smart enough to put the pubes all the way in the soda and not just sitting on the rim of the can.
 
2013-06-17 11:30:25 PM  
A comprehensive list of the lucid observations Justice Thomas has bestowed upon the court in the past 5+ years:

"Yale Sucks"  --Jan 14, 2013
 
2013-06-17 11:31:32 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.

Okay. Show your work. Exactly how did you reach this conclusion?

I thought about the various justices we have had on the Supreme Court.  Then I thought about Clarence Thomas.  Then I noticed that he was far more stupid than any of the others.

It was his lack of intellect, I think, that really tipped me off.  I don't suppose that you would have noticed that, though.

All the justices? You read their opinions? Read into their backgrounds, education, how they happened to get to the Court? Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?


Taney.

*ducks*
 
2013-06-17 11:31:46 PM  

Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?


Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.
 
2013-06-17 11:33:38 PM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.


Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.
 
2013-06-17 11:35:28 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.

Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.


Burger would be a good nomination if we're going with post Earl Warren. He was certainly the biggest dickwad on the Court in recent memory.
 
2013-06-17 11:38:32 PM  

cptjeff: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.

Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.

Burger would be a good nomination if we're going with post Earl Warren. He was certainly the biggest dickwad on the Court in recent memory.


I'll give you the dickwad part.

You know, metaphorically speaking.
 
2013-06-17 11:38:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.


Yeah, but there was no way Bush Sr wasn't going to replace a great Justice like Thurgood Marshall with another black guy.

I've kinda noticed that Republican leaders seem to think that all black people are the same.  After Obama was elected, the RNC appointed a goofy black guy in the form of Michael Steele to be it's chairman.  After a couple of years of talking about eating grits, putting up a section of the RNC website to appeal to young voters called "What Up", and basically acting like, not just a buffoon, but a stereotype, the RNC decided that voters got the point that black people make goofy at least and terrible at worst leaders.  Then they kicked him to the curb and, unless I'm mistaken, did not ask him to speak at CPAC (I could be wrong about this, but I don't recall hearing about him speaking there).
 
2013-06-17 11:39:44 PM  
CSB:

I just went outside, where my dad is digging up some blackberries out of the fenceline.  I said "who is the dumbest supreme court justice in history?"  Without the slightest bit of hesitation he said "Clarence Thomas".

He did remind me that this would no longer be true had Harriet Miers been confirmed.
 
2013-06-17 11:40:53 PM  

Nabb1: Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.


It's hard to say.  No one sticks out the way Thomas does.
 
2013-06-17 11:41:36 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.

Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.


Blackmun. No question.
 
2013-06-17 11:42:23 PM  

Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."


Thomas signed it and is responsible for its contents.
 
2013-06-17 11:46:33 PM  

Nabb1: Can anyone here tell me why I should be worked up about a passing citation that appears in a dissenting opinion?


The libs are still butthurt about Bush v. Gore and any mention of it is enough to set off a liberal circle jerk.
 
2013-06-17 11:50:08 PM  

Hollie Maea: CSB:

I just went outside, where my dad is digging up some blackberries out of the fenceline.  I said "who is the dumbest supreme court justice in history?"  Without the slightest bit of hesitation he said "Clarence Thomas".

He did remind me that this would no longer be true had Harriet Miers been confirmed.


Please don't bring that name up again. Thanks.
 
2013-06-17 11:50:13 PM  

vernonFL: How many times has Thomas disagreed with Scalia?


This is the second time in few weeks (DNA sample during arrests). Thomas must be really mad at Scalia for something. When Scalia looks reasonable compared to him something is really wrong.
 
2013-06-17 11:50:21 PM  

Neeek: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.

Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.

Blackmun. No question.


I couldn't really disagree with that, though he really did grow a lot on the Court.
 
2013-06-17 11:53:03 PM  
While we're on a SCROTUS history kick, can anybody name a bigger asshole than this guy, or does he hold the record?
 
2013-06-17 11:55:56 PM  

FlashHarry: Aarontology: When you think about it, aren't all circumstances current circumstances?

well, one of the many shiatty things about the bush v gore decision is that it was supposed to be "limited" to the current circumstances, which goes against hundreds of years of common law.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! COMMON LAW? That's a BRITISH legal concept.

Are you trying to say that we consider the laws of other nations when we decide whether something is constitutional?
 
2013-06-17 11:59:54 PM  

Jairzinho: vernonFL: How many times has Thomas disagreed with Scalia?

This is the second time in few weeks (DNA sample during arrests). Thomas must be really mad at Scalia for something. When Scalia looks reasonable compared to him something is really wrong.


Ah, yeah, that's the other recent one I couldn't remember.
 
2013-06-18 12:01:12 AM  
Frankly, I am far more concerned about Alito. He's a lot younger.
 
2013-06-18 12:07:11 AM  
 
2013-06-18 12:14:37 AM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.

It's hard to say.  No one sticks out the way Thomas does.


img341.imageshack.us

 
2013-06-18 12:17:47 AM  
I will say that those were the good ole days of the "lamestream media". Coke can? Pubes? Fark didn't have sheeit on that.
 
2013-06-18 12:27:45 AM  

timujin: ecmoRandomNumbers: How did Black Mr. Potatohead ever get nominated? I don't get it. Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.

Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?

Black Mr. Potatohead?
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 453x681]


That doesn't look anything like Clarence Thomas.

Although it really does look like Michael Steele, who is still waiting on his soup from Grover's Restaurant.
 
2013-06-18 12:28:32 AM  

cretinbob: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 228x308]


No it wasn't.
 
2013-06-18 12:32:39 AM  
Too lazy to see if this has been pointed out yet, but the Thomas' citation to Bush v. Gore is not to the case's holding, but to an ancillary point that actually comes from an 1892 decision. Here's the entire quote to which Thomas refers:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution."

So Thomas could have just cited to McPherson v. Blacker, but he was sloppy. I'm not defending his dissent and I'm certainly not endorsing Bush v. Gore, but I don't see anything particularly nefarious about the citation.
 
2013-06-18 12:32:42 AM  

AndreMA: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

Thomas signed it and is responsible for its contents.


You mean like the guy that signed the security budget cuts for embassies and consulates?
 
2013-06-18 12:45:14 AM  

Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.



Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.




Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.

that this isn't a foregone conclusion is farking bewildering.
 
2013-06-18 12:52:37 AM  

timujin: ecmoRandomNumbers: How did Black Mr. Potatohead ever get nominated? I don't get it. Bob Loblaw would've been a better pick.

Are you a corporate executive facing these or other charges? You don't need double talk! You need Bob Loblaw! After all, why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?

Black Mr. Potatohead?
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 453x681]


Mind blown.
 
2013-06-18 12:53:06 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Hollie Maea: CSB:

I just went outside, where my dad is digging up some blackberries out of the fenceline.  I said "who is the dumbest supreme court justice in history?"  Without the slightest bit of hesitation he said "Clarence Thomas".

He did remind me that this would no longer be true had Harriet Miers been confirmed.

Please don't bring that name up again. Thanks.


I think she would have been a great justice. It would be like a scientific control against which you measure all other justices against a known value of zero.
 
2013-06-18 12:57:54 AM  

SunsetLament: Nabb1: Can anyone here tell me why I should be worked up about a passing citation that appears in a dissenting opinion?

The libs are still butthurt about Bush v. Gore and any mention of it is enough to set off a liberal circle jerk.


That and Thomas is a conservative who happens to be...not white!

We get it, he's black.
 
2013-06-18 12:59:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.


has he EVER voted differently than Alito?  Couldn't agree more, the whole circus around his nomination obscured the fact that he's a farking idiot apparently.
 
2013-06-18 01:01:13 AM  
Regan did some awesome stuff. Thanks Buddy!
 
2013-06-18 01:01:58 AM  

cman: Why do people think that if Gore was President 9/11 would not have happened?


Bush failed to respond to warnings about Al-Qaeda and did this instead.
 
2013-06-18 01:14:25 AM  

PawisBetlog: cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.

has he EVER voted differently than Alito?  Couldn't agree more, the whole circus around his nomination obscured the fact that he's a farking idiot apparently.


You FUBARed the meme.  The meme is that he always votes the same as Scalia (not Alito).  Unfortunately, the article (and reality) also FUBARs the meme; so it's not entirely your fault.
 
2013-06-18 01:18:34 AM  
Clarence Thomas is terrible at his job?

It's not news, it's Fark.com.
 
2013-06-18 01:37:21 AM  

FlashHarry: thomas is an appallingly bad justice who should've been impeached years ago for tax evasion.


Based on exactly what evidence?

/waits with bells on as you fail to produce it
 
2013-06-18 01:38:55 AM  

Hollie Maea: Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.


Please cite how many supreme court opinions you've actually read to produce this conclusion.
 
2013-06-18 01:58:53 AM  

Neeek: Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?

Who cares who was the smartest?  The question here is who is the dumbest?  And the answer is Clarence Thomas.

Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.

Blackmun. No question.


Look at how stupid you are.

As for the original question - I couldn't really say that he was stupid, but Stevens' opinions were often complete gibberish. He would disagree with the majority's reasoning yet nevertheless reject the majority's conclusion, and therefore concur in the result.
 
2013-06-18 02:04:43 AM  
so, it is time to go back to the Thomas well and piss in it, again.

Has every generation picked a supreme court judge to mock mercilessly?

I'm trying to think back to before Thomas was appointed and I just don't remember (I'm
sure Thurgood was mocked just for being a blackman).

but... is there always a target on the supreme court to the extent Thomas is?
 
2013-06-18 02:05:29 AM  

winterbraid: Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.


Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.


Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.

that this isn't a foregone conclusion is farking bewildering.


But Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.
 
2013-06-18 02:47:04 AM  

Nabb1: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

And it's a dissenting opinion as well. If you get upset about a dissenting opinion, you really need to get a life.



It tends to show the direction of the courts in the future. Some moight say they are most important.
 
2013-06-18 02:48:46 AM  

evil saltine: winterbraid: Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.


Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.


Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.

that this isn't a foregone conclusion is farking bewildering.

But Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.


I could have a beer with Hitler, as long as I shaved my mustache. That doesn't mean I agree with the guy, or that the guy is sane and competent and I want him as my leader.

/Mustache turns bright orange, with otherwise dark facial features
//Tell-tale Ashkenazic morphology.
 
2013-06-18 02:49:01 AM  
Ridiculous!

We need to have enhanced background checks to ensure freedom in the republic.
 
2013-06-18 02:52:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.


At least he is a bona fide judge, Kagan is not.  He isn't a racist, Sotomayor is.  They need to get away from case law and use that Constitution thingy they keep forgetting about.....like when they dropped the ball on the unAffordable Care Act.
 
2013-06-18 03:31:17 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Nabb1 (an actual laywer)


GED in law, huh?

Wait for it ...

i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-18 03:37:38 AM  

armoredbulldozer: cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.

At least he is a bona fide judge, Kagan is not.  He isn't a racist, Sotomayor is.  They need to get away from case law and use that Constitution thingy they keep forgetting about.....like when they dropped the ball on the unAffordable Care Act.


Only 244 characters and 44 words, yet 200-proof Freeper/Fox talking-points derp. It's like absinthe-strength right-wing Kool-Aid in written form.
 
2013-06-18 03:40:02 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.


He's a muppet. The question is, honestly, whose hand is up his ass at any given time. The joke usually runs something like "an amazing thing happened today - Thomas spoke while Alito drank a glass of water", but, honestly, I'm thinking he has more than one person's arm calling the shots.
 
2013-06-18 03:52:32 AM  

Nabb1: All the justices? You read their opinions? Read into their backgrounds, education, how they happened to get to the Court? Who would you say was the smartest Justice between the War of 1812 and Reconstruction?


All right, I'm down with turning this into a history nerd thread.

1812 to Reconstruction:
John Marshall.  Defined many of the basic terms used in US jurisprudence, so absurdly good at his job that he was on the dissent all of once in his career, McCulloch v. Maryland (since we're talking post 1812 only) set up the basic for-reals legal argument for federal supremacy (as opposed to the more purely philosophical arguments in the federalist papers and so on), and his high-profile cases are basically literally everything that non-lawyers know about early US law for a good reason.

After Reconstruction:
W.H. Motherfarking Taft.  Most ridiculously overqualified chief justice ever even before taking office, pretty much researched and pushed the Judiciary act of 1925 by himself, and dragged the outdated and terrible US Court system kicking and screaming into its modern organizational state as a real working third branch of government in under a decade.

Dumbest/Worst:
Salmon Chase.  Firstly, had to be a reconstruction politician because pretty much everyone in politics farked that up as hard as humanly possible.  Secondly, for releasing an opinion that hedged on the divisibility of the union in  1869, when it was important to state "no, you can't secede, ever" as clearly as humanly possible.  Dumbass.

//Weirdly, Taft wasn't a very good executive/legislative politician and Chase was a pretty good one, so the rest of their careers kinda flip on quality.
//Post Earl Warren is actually a lot harder, since you're talking more directly relevant cases and it's hard to separate actual competence from agreeing/disagreeing with my political opinions.
 
2013-06-18 03:53:13 AM  

FormlessOne: cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.

He's a muppet. The question is, honestly, whose hand is up his ass at any given time. The joke usually runs something like "an amazing thing happened today - Thomas spoke while Alito drank a glass of water", but, honestly, I'm thinking he has more than one person's arm calling the shots.


People pay big money to take their turns.
 
2013-06-18 04:05:34 AM  

BravadoGT: I know this might go over the head of some of the Fark scholars here, but Thomas here didn't cite Bush v. Gore for any of the holdings that came from that case; rather, he's referring to a legal precedent that dates back to 1892 and the Constitution, which the Court most recently recited in Bush v. Gore.  Here's the quote:


"This Court has recognized, however, that "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000) (per curiam) (citing U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, and McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892))."

The reference to the case is completely appropriate in the context Thomas presents it.


Don't stop them, they're on a roll.

Just like the lib/con argument about *gasp!* Scalia supporting the majority on this, which anyone with an ounce of brains would know he'd do. It's not that surprising if you know a smidgen of Con Law and how Scalia operates.*

*This is not to be construed as an endorsement of Justice Antonin Scalia.
 
2013-06-18 04:40:29 AM  
This thread is hilarious, but it's too spread out.  I'll summarize:

"Clarence Thomas is a moron!!!!"

Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?

"No, he is a genuine moron!!!"

Excluding the current bench, can you name two other Justices you consider to be subpar?

"This isn't a history class!!  I don't need to know that to know Thomas is a moron!"

Are there opinions which you think offer evidence of this?

"I don't read that stuff!  Just look at how often he is the PUPPET of Antonin Scalia!"

That's not true either.

"Whatever NEOCON."
 
2013-06-18 05:34:47 AM  
Thomas becoming vocal and singular doesn't sound like a next level to the man's career.
I predict early retirement.

/BTW, Daily Beast, just because Alito wrote his own dissent doesn't mean Thomas was alone in all this.  FYI
 
2013-06-18 06:05:30 AM  

Sgt Otter: One of Bush's first actions as Commander-in-Chief was to replace General Hugh Shelton, the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Army Special Forces officer with extensive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency experience, with General Richard Myers, an Air Force ex-fighter jock (like Bush) and ICBM silo slob who still viewed Russia as the USA's greatest threat, and whose pet project was reviving the Cold War-era Star Wars program.


What's sad is that one of Bush's "first actions as Commander-in-Chief" was apparently taken after 9/11 - on Oct 1st, after Shelton's term was up.
 
2013-06-18 06:47:00 AM  

Captain Dan: This thread is hilarious, but it's too spread out.  I'll summarize:

"Clarence Thomas is a moron!!!!"

Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?

"No, he is a genuine moron!!!"

Excluding the current bench, can you name two other Justices you consider to be subpar?

"This isn't a history class!!  I don't need to know that to know Thomas is a moron!"

Are there opinions which you think offer evidence of this?

"I don't read that stuff!  Just look at how often he is the PUPPET of Antonin Scalia!"

That's not true either.

"Whatever NEOCON."


In all fairness to the guy, as someone that actually answered the question about historical USSC justices that were good or bad at it, I have to agree that Thomas is pretty bad at it.  The whole point of the court is to clarify or add a rationale for how the law works, and he really doesn't do that on a regular basis.  His opinions aren't necessarily invalid in themselves, but he adds nothing new or particularly valuable to the array of existing expertise on the current court, since Scalia is already there with the same opinions and Scalia is  much better at backing them up and addressing the concerns of those opposing him on any given issue.

So, not the worst judge in the history of everything ever so much, but contributes nothing and is intellectually overshadowed by his peers to a massive degree.  I mean, to his credit, the man is technically fulfilling the literal lowest required standards for the job, I guess, but that's  all he's doing, the other guys all at least  try to bring something useful to the table beyond just another vote.
 
2013-06-18 06:52:56 AM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Who is your runner up for the dumbest? Excluding, let's say, everyone in the field before the Earl Warren era.

It's hard to say.  No one sticks out the way Thomas does.


In other words, you have no farking clue. You've never actually read any Supreme Court decisions, haven't read probably a sliver of Thomas's work, and I am by no means calling him one of the Court's intellectual giants like, say, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the truth is you are just parroting what you've read on the Internet without one scintilla of knowledge about jurisprudence and are completely unable to articulate even a modest defense of your assertion. So congratulations on being able to repeat what others have trained you to say.
 
2013-06-18 07:46:53 AM  
The funny thing about being the highest court in the land is that you are legally permitted to ignore or reverse what every other court in the land did, including yourselves. You are not bound by precedent.
 
2013-06-18 08:03:07 AM  

djkutch: Is that the guy that put pubes on a can of Coke and married a white woman? It's been so long, I can't remember.


Quite a few supreme court justices married white women. A few even married whire men! You'll have to be more specific.

But Clarence Thomas did put a pubs on a cab of coke, and his wife gladly launders the bribe money he receives for ruling the right way on cases that are in front of the court
 
2013-06-18 08:08:34 AM  
Reading Scalia take shots at Thomas' dissenting opinion is a thing of beauty.
 
2013-06-18 08:11:46 AM  
When I was in law school I always liked seeing a Thomas opinion or dissent. I knew it would be relatively short and definitely easy to read. I hated running across an O'Connor. She would go on and on.
 
2013-06-18 08:16:04 AM  

The Larch: his wife


has the maiden name Lamp, so yes Clarence Thomas loves Lamp.
 
2013-06-18 08:21:27 AM  

s2s2s2: AndreMA: Rincewind53: P.S.: Almost all justices don't write their own decisions, their clerks do it for them.

Headline should read "Justice Thomas's clerk cites  Bush v. Gore."

Thomas signed it and is responsible for its contents.

You mean like the guy that signed the security budget cuts for embassies and consulates?


Yes.
 
2013-06-18 08:46:02 AM  

Ivandrago: When I was in law school I always liked seeing a Thomas opinion or dissent. I knew it would be relatively short and definitely easy to read. I hated running across an O'Connor. She would go on and on.


But she was usually right.
 
2013-06-18 08:56:33 AM  

keithgabryelski: so, it is time to go back to the Thomas well and piss in it, again.

Has every generation picked a supreme court judge to mock mercilessly?

I'm trying to think back to before Thomas was appointed and I just don't remember (I'm
sure Thurgood was mocked just for being a blackman).

but... is there always a target on the supreme court to the extent Thomas is?


He is unique in many ways. For starters, he was the only one who had "Long Dong Silver" mentioned at his confirmation hearings. He's also the most brazenly criminal, he flaunts it. He was a defense attorney for Monsanto, which makes puppy-killers  look like angels. The best part is him being black, so the derp squad can yell "you libtards are racist" while this total douche sits on the SCOTUS. It's brilliant in its ridiculousness.
 
2013-06-18 09:04:52 AM  

AndreMA: Yes.


lans-soapbox.com
 
2013-06-18 09:08:37 AM  
What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!
 
2013-06-18 09:18:53 AM  

ib_thinkin: Thomas didn't have to point to Bush v. Gore for this otherwise unremarkable point of law. Weird that he did.


I have no idea what the Supreme Court's citation conventions are, but when I draft a brief or memo and cite a particular holding, I typically like to cite an early case that lays the holding out in detail, and one of the more recent cases to affirmatively cite or follow that earlier case to show that it is still recognized as good law. I don't see any reason to believe that Thomas is doing anything differently here. This is such a non-issue.
 
2013-06-18 09:22:53 AM  

Hollie Maea: What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!


Biggest moron in history is a very low bar to limbo under.  Biggest moron on the SCOTUS, is a little higher.
 
2013-06-18 09:31:14 AM  

Hollie Maea: What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!


With you continuing to comment in spite of your brazen ignorance, I think we have a new winner of that title.
 
2013-06-18 09:33:20 AM  

Neeek: The argument isn't that they wouldn't have tried, it's they'd have been stopped. Considering counterterrorism was the #1 national security priority at the end of the Clinton administration, which was dumped for making missile defense the priority when Bush took office, the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was President is not only not farfetched, it is actually pretty well justified.


i think it's certainly plausible that, for this and various other reasons stated above, 9/11 may not have happened under a president gore.

that being said, it's an obvious moot point.

however, what we DO know is that had 9/11 happened under president gore, the GOP would have called for his impeachment and possible execution that very night.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:37 AM  

Asa Phelps: Has anyone called him an uncle tom yet?


If that's the first thing you think of when you see "Clarence Thomas," then that's on you.
 
2013-06-18 09:43:30 AM  

Nabb1: Can anyone here tell me why I should be worked up about a passing citation that appears in a dissenting opinion?


It's right in the headline.

Bush v Gore was supposed to be exempt from being used as precedent. But it's being used as precedent.

Now, to me it's just interesting, but if you want to be "worked up" about it, that's up to you.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:16 AM  

EvilEgg: Hollie Maea: What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!

Biggest moron in history is a very low bar to limbo under.  Biggest moron on the SCOTUS, is a little higher.


Ok, so obviously my tone has been somewhat tongue in cheek--as the Clarence Thomas Fan Club has repeatedly pointed out, I have not read every argument made by every justice ever. On the other hand, even by his supporters the main arguement has been "well there have been a ton of people on the Supreme Court and maybe one of them was dumber". In addition, no one has offered up a counter example, even though you would think that if there were someone that dumb, they would be pretty memorable...some SCOTUS nerd would be like "you forgot THIS dumb motherfarker". I think what most people definitely can agree on is that Clarence Thomas is startlingly unintelligent considering that he was appointed to one of the top offices in the land. And I don't say that as a partisan thing--although I disagree with John Roberts most of the time, I think he is one of the smarter justices.
 
2013-06-18 09:49:14 AM  

Nabb1: the truth is you are just parroting what you've read on the Internet without one scintilla of knowledge about jurisprudence and are completely unable to articulate even a modest defense of your assertion. So congratulations on being able to repeat what others have trained you to say.


And congratulations on remembering to pin your "Word of the Day" calendar entries on your cubicle wall but still managing to write sizable run-on sentences.
 
2013-06-18 09:53:04 AM  

Hollie Maea: EvilEgg: Hollie Maea: What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!

Biggest moron in history is a very low bar to limbo under.  Biggest moron on the SCOTUS, is a little higher.

Ok, so obviously my tone has been somewhat tongue in cheek--as the Clarence Thomas Fan Club has repeatedly pointed out, I have not read every argument made by every justice ever. On the other hand, even by his supporters the main arguement has been "well there have been a ton of people on the Supreme Court and maybe one of them was dumber". In addition, no one has offered up a counter example, even though you would think that if there were someone that dumb, they would be pretty memorable...some SCOTUS nerd would be like "you forgot THIS dumb motherfarker". I think what most people definitely can agree on is that Clarence Thomas is startlingly unintelligent considering that he was appointed to one of the top offices in the land. And I don't say that as a partisan thing--although I disagree with John Roberts most of the time, I think he is one of the smarter justices.


No, you have just failed to come up with any support whatsoever to back up your assertion.  Zero.  You have displayed absolutely no knowledge of case law, cited none of his writings, drawn no comparisons to the work of other Justices.  Even if Clarence Thomas is the dumbest Justice ever, he is likely still infinitely more intelligent than you will ever hope to be, especially considering matters of law.  No, I am not a "fan" of Clarence Thomas, but when I have studied Constitutional Law under one of his friends and classmates who, in addition to being the polar political and philosophical opposite of Justice Thomas, once chided a law student who made such a foolish statement about calling his intelligence into question and cautioned that he was a very intelligent man, and having read volumes of opinions by Supreme Court Justices, am a little more inclined to believe that than the word of some kid who thus far has only cited his dad's opinion while picking berries as an external source for his opinion.  And I guarantee you Justice Thomas is probably more knowledgeable on the law than him, too.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:50 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Nabb1: Can anyone here tell me why I should be worked up about a passing citation that appears in a dissenting opinion?

It's right in the headline.

Bush v Gore was supposed to be exempt from being used as precedent. But it's being used as precedent.

Now, to me it's just interesting, but if you want to be "worked up" about it, that's up to you.


If you look at the context in which it was referenced, it was cited with other cases that made the same statement of the law.  It was not controlling in the outcome of the case.  Even if Thomas were in the majority, other cases on that particular point of law said the same thing.  It was not an improper use of the citation, and quite appropriate in that usage.  He probably should have left it out just to keep people from having fits, but likely his clerk used Keycite on Westlaw, and wrote down all the cases that came up on that particular point of law.  It might be interesting to some people, but it's significance in the jurisprudential sense is more or less negligible.
 
2013-06-18 09:59:07 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Nabb1: the truth is you are just parroting what you've read on the Internet without one scintilla of knowledge about jurisprudence and are completely unable to articulate even a modest defense of your assertion. So congratulations on being able to repeat what others have trained you to say.

And congratulations on remembering to pin your "Word of the Day" calendar entries on your cubicle wall but still managing to write sizable run-on sentences.


That's not a run-on sentence. And if by "cubicle" you mean "office," no I don't have a "word of the day" calendar.
 
2013-06-18 10:03:03 AM  

kronicfeld: ib_thinkin: Thomas didn't have to point to Bush v. Gore for this otherwise unremarkable point of law. Weird that he did.

I have no idea what the Supreme Court's citation conventions are, but when I draft a brief or memo and cite a particular holding, I typically like to cite an early case that lays the holding out in detail, and one of the more recent cases to affirmatively cite or follow that earlier case to show that it is still recognized as good law. I don't see any reason to believe that Thomas is doing anything differently here. This is such a non-issue.


But Thomas is citing dicta that went against the substantive holding of the case. Bush v. Gore came out the way it did in spite of the point of law referenced. States are free to choose electors in any way they please, the Supreme Court said, but Florida can't do it that way. The actual point of law cited is uncontroversial, but it's still weird that he'd go to that case to show it.
 
2013-06-18 10:17:47 AM  

Nabb1: rufus-t-firefly: Nabb1: the truth is you are just parroting what you've read on the Internet without one scintilla of knowledge about jurisprudence and are completely unable to articulate even a modest defense of your assertion. So congratulations on being able to repeat what others have trained you to say.

And congratulations on remembering to pin your "Word of the Day" calendar entries on your cubicle wall but still managing to write sizable run-on sentences.

That's not a run-on sentence. And if by "cubicle" you mean "office," no I don't have a "word of the day" calendar.


If by "office" you mean "the tiny closet with an open drain, a metal folding chair, a stack of crates, and the building's supply of vomit sawdust" then yes, he is talking about your "office".
 
2013-06-18 11:06:09 AM  

Captain Dan: Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?


I spent a half a year just reading cases with opinions or dissents specifically written by Thomas. I read his execrable US v. Morrison concurrence, his contentless Lawrence v. Texas dissent, his ignorant, factually inaccurate, and historically blind opinion in Parents v. School District, his head-scratching dissent in Georgia v. Randolph, and his characteristically pro-molestation dissent (so vile that even Scalia wouldn't join it) in Safford United School District v. Redding. I chuckled at his hypocrisy in Virginia v. Black, I ranted at the unsupported powers he unilaterally ascribed to the executive branch - powers that even the monarch of Great Britain as of 1783 no longer had - in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I shook my head at his joining Scalia in a frank misreading of international law as incorporated into United States law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and returning to the root of his modern malfeasance on the Court, I read again United States v. Lopez and marveled at how his concurrence portended a wholesale attempt to destroy centuries of jurisprudence on nothing more than his hunches about what "commerce" should really mean.

His reasoning is specious, his respect for the Court and the law is nil, his ideas about the organization of society are less advanced than a Neanderthal's, and his abject refusal to recuse himself from the decisions of the Court when he has a patent and material interest in the outcome of the case brings disrepute to what should be the least partial branch of government. I may find Anthony Kennedy pusillanimous and craven, I may find Alito doctrinaire with only an occasional surprise, I may find Scalia's vaunted originalism to be not only overstated but also lacking in historical or judicial grounding, and I may find Roberts more conservative than I would like (although really, I've developed a considerable amount of respect for him) - but I won't question their qualification to sit on the bench, nor do I think any of them save Scalia will bring disrepute on the Court. Thomas, however, is the greatest cancer on the dignity of the Court, and as opposed to his fellow judges I will not miss him when he is gone.
 
2013-06-18 11:32:49 AM  
Other than Dred Scott, but Bush v. Gore might have been the most destructive ruling in U.S. history.  It was a ruling whose purpose was entirely the undermining of democracy.   And it lead to Bush, which had all it's own problems.
 
2013-06-18 11:37:29 AM  

captainktainer: Captain Dan: Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?

I spent a half a year just reading cases with opinions or dissents specifically written by Thomas. I read his execrable US v. Morrison concurrence, his contentless Lawrence v. Texas dissent, his ignorant, factually inaccurate, and historically blind opinion in Parents v. School District, his head-scratching dissent in Georgia v. Randolph, and his characteristically pro-molestation dissent (so vile that even Scalia wouldn't join it) in Safford United School District v. Redding. I chuckled at his hypocrisy in Virginia v. Black, I ranted at the unsupported powers he unilaterally ascribed to the executive branch - powers that even the monarch of Great Britain as of 1783 no longer had - in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I shook my head at his joining Scalia in a frank misreading of international law as incorporated into United States law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and returning to the root of his modern malfeasance on the Court, I read again United States v. Lopez and marveled at how his concurrence portended a wholesale attempt to destroy centuries of jurisprudence on nothing more than his hunches about what "commerce" should really mean.

His reasoning is specious, his respect for the Court and the law is nil, his ideas about the organization of society are less advanced than a Neanderthal's, and his abject refusal to recuse himself from the decisions of the Court when he has a patent and material interest in the outcome of the case brings disrepute to what should be the least partial branch of government. I may find Anthony Kennedy pusillanimous and craven, I may find Alito doctrinaire with only an occasional surprise, I may find Scalia's vaunted originalism to be not only overstated but also lacking in historical or judicial grounding, and I may find Roberts more conservative than I would like (although really, I've developed a considerable amount of respect for him) - but I won't quest ...


Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.
 
2013-06-18 11:38:56 AM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: EvilEgg: Hollie Maea: What I have learned: There are at least three people in the world who don't think that Clarence Thomas is the biggest moron in history.  He's doing better than I expected!

Biggest moron in history is a very low bar to limbo under.  Biggest moron on the SCOTUS, is a little higher.

Ok, so obviously my tone has been somewhat tongue in cheek--as the Clarence Thomas Fan Club has repeatedly pointed out, I have not read every argument made by every justice ever. On the other hand, even by his supporters the main arguement has been "well there have been a ton of people on the Supreme Court and maybe one of them was dumber". In addition, no one has offered up a counter example, even though you would think that if there were someone that dumb, they would be pretty memorable...some SCOTUS nerd would be like "you forgot THIS dumb motherfarker". I think what most people definitely can agree on is that Clarence Thomas is startlingly unintelligent considering that he was appointed to one of the top offices in the land. And I don't say that as a partisan thing--although I disagree with John Roberts most of the time, I think he is one of the smarter justices.

No, you have just failed to come up with any support whatsoever to back up your assertion.  Zero.  You have displayed absolutely no knowledge of case law, cited none of his writings, drawn no comparisons to the work of other Justices.  Even if Clarence Thomas is the dumbest Justice ever, he is likely still infinitely more intelligent than you will ever hope to be, especially considering matters of law.  No, I am not a "fan" of Clarence Thomas, but when I have studied Constitutional Law under one of his friends and classmates who, in addition to being the polar political and philosophical opposite of Justice Thomas, once chided a law student who made such a foolish statement about calling his intelligence into question and cautioned that he was a very intelligent man, and having read volumes ...


That would make a great epitaph!

Here lies Clarence Thomas.  Not as pants-shiattingly stupid as he seemed.

We should all aspire to such lofty heights.
 
2013-06-18 11:38:58 AM  

ikanreed: Other than Dred Scott, but Bush v. Gore might have been the most destructive ruling in U.S. history.  It was a ruling whose purpose was entirely the undermining of democracy.   And it lead to Bush, which had all it's own problems.


Dredd Scott was the right legal decision, but the wrong moral one. Bush v. Gore is more complicated than people believe, and the State's Rights swap didn't actually happen.
 
2013-06-18 11:39:52 AM  

Hollie Maea: That would make a great epitaph!

Here lies Clarence Thomas.  Not as pants-shiattingly stupid as he seemed.

We should all aspire to such lofty heights.


You have to admit: some farkers are exactly as stupid as they seem.
 
2013-06-18 11:52:42 AM  

vygramul: ikanreed: Other than Dred Scott, but Bush v. Gore might have been the most destructive ruling in U.S. history.  It was a ruling whose purpose was entirely the undermining of democracy.   And it lead to Bush, which had all it's own problems.

Dredd Scott was the right legal decision, but the wrong moral one. Bush v. Gore is more complicated than people believe, and the State's Rights swap didn't actually happen.


No it really wasn't the right legal decision.  Even at that point the constitution was pretty clear that citizens had rights, and that surpassed full faith and credit as a fundamental legal principle.  It was just a bone tossed to slave states to quell their increasing discontent at the North's increasing political dominance by a supreme court.  5 of the justices on the majority opinion on Sanford v. Scott were actual slaveholders themselves.

The dissent argued that there was no reason why Scott could not be a citizen under any law of the U.S, and the retroactive denial of citizenship was a violation of rights, and precedent for huge abuses in the future.  That was a perfectly reasonable, and accurate assessment.  Only one justice on the court at that time could reasonably be called liberal.
 
2013-06-18 11:56:58 AM  

captainktainer: Captain Dan: Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?

I spent a half a year just reading cases with opinions or dissents specifically written by Thomas. I read his execrable US v. Morrison concurrence, his contentless Lawrence v. Texas dissent, his ignorant, factually inaccurate, and historically blind opinion in Parents v. School District, his head-scratching dissent in Georgia v. Randolph, and his characteristically pro-molestation dissent (so vile that even Scalia wouldn't join it) in Safford United School District v. Redding. I chuckled at his hypocrisy in Virginia v. Black, I ranted at the unsupported powers he unilaterally ascribed to the executive branch - powers that even the monarch of Great Britain as of 1783 no longer had - in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I shook my head at his joining Scalia in a frank misreading of international law as incorporated into United States law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and returning to the root of his modern malfeasance on the Court, I read again United States v. Lopez and marveled at how his concurrence portended a wholesale attempt to destroy centuries of jurisprudence on nothing more than his hunches about what "commerce" should really mean.

His reasoning is specious, his respect for the Court and the law is nil, his ideas about the organization of society are less advanced than a Neanderthal's, and his abject refusal to recuse himself from the decisions of the Court when he has a patent and material interest in the outcome of the case brings disrepute to what should be the least partial branch of government. I may find Anthony Kennedy pusillanimous and craven, I may find Alito doctrinaire with only an occasional surprise, I may find Scalia's vaunted originalism to be not only overstated but also lacking in historical or judicial grounding, and I may find Roberts more conservative than I would like (although really, I've developed a considerable amount of respect for him) - but I won't quest ...


www.allfordmustangs.com
 
2013-06-18 12:03:29 PM  

Hollie Maea: captainktainer: Captain Dan: Are you sure you're not just saying that because you're a low-information Democrat?

I spent a half a year just reading cases with opinions or dissents specifically written by Thomas. I read his execrable US v. Morrison concurrence, his contentless Lawrence v. Texas dissent, his ignorant, factually inaccurate, and historically blind opinion in Parents v. School District, his head-scratching dissent in Georgia v. Randolph, and his characteristically pro-molestation dissent (so vile that even Scalia wouldn't join it) in Safford United School District v. Redding. I chuckled at his hypocrisy in Virginia v. Black, I ranted at the unsupported powers he unilaterally ascribed to the executive branch - powers that even the monarch of Great Britain as of 1783 no longer had - in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, I shook my head at his joining Scalia in a frank misreading of international law as incorporated into United States law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and returning to the root of his modern malfeasance on the Court, I read again United States v. Lopez and marveled at how his concurrence portended a wholesale attempt to destroy centuries of jurisprudence on nothing more than his hunches about what "commerce" should really mean.

His reasoning is specious, his respect for the Court and the law is nil, his ideas about the organization of society are less advanced than a Neanderthal's, and his abject refusal to recuse himself from the decisions of the Court when he has a patent and material interest in the outcome of the case brings disrepute to what should be the least partial branch of government. I may find Anthony Kennedy pusillanimous and craven, I may find Alito doctrinaire with only an occasional surprise, I may find Scalia's vaunted originalism to be not only overstated but also lacking in historical or judicial grounding, and I may find Roberts more conservative than I would like (although really, I've developed a considerable amount of respect for him) - but I won't quest ...

Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.


He did what you couldn't. There's no reason to be smug.
 
2013-06-18 02:02:17 PM  

Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.


Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.
 
2013-06-18 02:21:07 PM  

Ablejack: Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.

Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.


Yes, an Ivy League educated law professor at a tier one law school is dumb compared to the brain trust here.
 
2013-06-18 02:30:17 PM  

Nabb1: Ablejack: Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.

Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.

Yes, an Ivy League educated law professor at a tier one law school is dumb compared to the brain trust here.


According to this article your Ivy League educated friend is probably incompetent.
 
2013-06-18 03:23:09 PM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Ablejack: Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.

Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.

Yes, an Ivy League educated law professor at a tier one law school is dumb compared to the brain trust here.

According to this article your Ivy League educated friend is probably incompetent.


My professor.  In law school.  Granted, it's not quite like consulting your dad while he picks berries.  I'm sure your dad is quite the legal scholar.
 
2013-06-18 03:34:07 PM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Ablejack: Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.

Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.

Yes, an Ivy League educated law professor at a tier one law school is dumb compared to the brain trust here.

According to this article your Ivy League educated friend is probably incompetent.


And, BTW, you've completely missed the point. I do not think that compared to his contemporaries or past Justices that he is any intellectual heavyweight.  My point was you were not capable of articulating how you've come to that conclusion.  Thus far, you have consulted your dad, who is no doubt a fine person, but how he reached that conclusion himself is also completely unknown, quoted someone else who was able to put forth a convincing argument to back up his opinion, and simply posted a link to another person's article.  In short, you have let others do all the intellectual heavy lifting while instead focusing on me and insulting a law professor, which is a fine way to kill time for laughs, but you've really done nothing to support your argument at all.
 
2013-06-18 03:56:44 PM  

Nabb1: Hollie Maea: Nabb1: Ablejack: Hollie Maea: Counterpoint: A friend of his told Nabb1 that Thomas isn't as stupid as he seems.  That friend was a LIBERAL, even.

Stupidity cannot recognize stupidity.

Yes, an Ivy League educated law professor at a tier one law school is dumb compared to the brain trust here.

According to this article your Ivy League educated friend is probably incompetent.

And, BTW, you've completely missed the point. I do not think that compared to his contemporaries or past Justices that he is any intellectual heavyweight.  My point was you were not capable of articulating how you've come to that conclusion.  Thus far, you have consulted your dad, who is no doubt a fine person, but how he reached that conclusion himself is also completely unknown, quoted someone else who was able to put forth a convincing argument to back up his opinion, and simply posted a link to another person's article.  In short, you have let others do all the intellectual heavy lifting while instead focusing on me and insulting a law professor, which is a fine way to kill time for laughs, but you've really done nothing to support your argument at all.


Hey...for me to "prove" that Thomas is the dumbest ever would require me to show that every single justice was smarter than he.  That would take way too much time.  By contrast, you could prove me wrong with a SINGLE example of one that was dumber than he.  In spite of having a far easier task, you haven't been able to show such an example.
 
2013-06-18 03:57:38 PM  

Nabb1: My professor.  In law school.


Who, by Justice Thomas' own admission, went to a bad school that makes him less reliable.
 
2013-06-18 05:18:11 PM  

Hollie Maea: Nabb1: My professor.  In law school.

Who, by Justice Thomas' own admission, went to a bad school that makes him less reliable.


Even a bad law school would give him better credentials than yours.

And, no, if it's your hypothesis, you support it.  You don't parrot what other people have said and defy others to prove you wrong.

Go look up Justice Chase.  That guy was as close to a certifiable ignoramus as the Court has ever seen.
 
2013-06-18 05:34:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.


Everybody knew that when he was appointed. It was in all the headlines: "This Guy Is Terrible!" Didn't stop the mindless right wing in Congress from shoving him through anyway and saddling the country with him for the rest of his life.
 
2013-06-18 06:25:03 PM  
I don't understand why people insist on calling Clarence Thomas stupid. He's not stupid at all. He's just a complete asshole, just like every other conservative who has ever lived.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report