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
    More: Asinine, supreme courts, objections  
•       •       •

3054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2013 at 10:34 PM (3 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 19 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