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  
•       •       •

3045 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2013 at 10:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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