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  
•       •       •

3046 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
 
2013-06-18 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".
 
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