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 68
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-17 10:58:44 PM  
11 votes:

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 06:03:41 PM  
10 votes:
thomas is an appallingly bad justice who should've been impeached years ago for tax evasion.
2013-06-17 07:19:58 PM  
7 votes:

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 10:40:44 PM  
5 votes:

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 10:37:15 PM  
5 votes:

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 08:52:02 PM  
5 votes:
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 10:49:06 PM  
4 votes:
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 09:10:13 PM  
4 votes:

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 08:35:40 PM  
4 votes:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to pen a really stupid dissenting opinion and remove all doubt
2013-06-17 08:35:25 PM  
4 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-17 07:39:49 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:14:53 PM  
4 votes:
I can't believe this guy made it to the Supreme Court. He's awful.
2013-06-17 09:33:04 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:20:52 PM  
3 votes:
Oh yeah! Fire up the lawsuits, every election can be contested now.
2013-06-18 01:18:34 AM  
2 votes:
Clarence Thomas is terrible at his job?

It's not news, it's Fark.com.
2013-06-17 11:39:44 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:28:19 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:19:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:14:53 PM  
2 votes:

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


Just you.
2013-06-17 06:25:38 PM  
2 votes:
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."
2013-06-18 11:37:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:03:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:56:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:46:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:37:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:31:17 AM  
1 votes:

100 Watt Walrus: Nabb1 (an actual laywer)


GED in law, huh?

Wait for it ...

i4.ytimg.com
2013-06-18 02:48:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:47:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:14:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:01:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:53:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:17:47 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:14:37 AM  
1 votes:

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
2013-06-17 11:55:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:50:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:50:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:46:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:38:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:35:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:30:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:29:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:24:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:22:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:15:40 PM  
1 votes:
I thought justice Thomas didn't believe in stare decisis.
2013-06-17 11:14:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:29 PM  
1 votes:
Thomas is easily the most stupid justice the court has ever seen.  Probably not the worst. But definitely the most stupid.
2013-06-17 11:08:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:32 PM  
1 votes:
There's stiff competition for Worst Supreme Court Justice, Ever. But he is certainly in the running.

\is this your pube?
2013-06-17 11:02:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:01:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:00:02 PM  
1 votes:
In before "u libs  still aren't over the 2000 election" derp.
2013-06-17 08:40:01 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, he's a Goddamned disgrace.  And so is his wife.
2013-06-17 08:18:48 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:16:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:12:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:57:15 PM  
1 votes:

Kimothy: Clarence Thomas is just an idiot.


Yep.
2013-06-17 07:56:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:25:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:25:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:08:10 PM  
1 votes:
When you think about it, aren't all circumstances current circumstances?
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report