BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas

Subject: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomes
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM

I didn't know this until I read a story in yesterdays paper.

Full story here



It is a strange anniversary coming up for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—on Feb. 22, it will have been five years since the justice has spoken during a court argument. The other justices average between six questions or remarks a case (Alito) and 25 (Scalia), and no other justice in 40 years has gone a term without speaking at least once during arguments. Thomas has given different reasons for his extended silence, from being self-conscious about his southern dialect to politeness, but he remains a mystery, reports the New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM

And yes - I hope a clone somewhere will correct the spelling of the name Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:32 PM

What does he need to say? His wife is 'out there' clarifying all her AND his positions on everything.

He is the biggest embarrassment on the court.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM

Here's an alternative point of view on politics and the Supremes by Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, also in the NY Times. It concludes:

"It is absurd for conservatives to criticize the cosmopolitan forums where judges from around the world compare notes. And it is absurd for liberals to criticize the conservative justices for associating with people who share or reinforce their views. The justices are human — and the more we let them be human, the better job they will do. Let the unthinkable be said! If the medieval vestments are making people think the justices should be monks, then maybe, just maybe, we should to do away with those robes."

But I agree, Clarence Thomas is a strange bird.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 02:01 PM

Clarence (Uncle) Thomas holds the distinction (?) of being the least qualified person ever to be a justice in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:36 PM

"It's better to remain silent and appear stupid than to speak and remove all doubt." (Confucius)

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:11 PM

The OpEd cited sets up straw men for the purpose of knocking them down. The early example Feldman cites seem to have had little or no effect on the decisions the justices made. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear that they believe they are above the law and, have no need to follow the principles of being disinterested participants in judging the cases before them.

Caesar's wife should be above all suspicion.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:48 PM

Breaking news... Thomas claimed he 'just dropped by' a Republican retreat hosted by the billionaire Koch Brothers in 2008, but now Common Cause says that he was reimbursed an undisclosed amount for four days of "transportation, meals and accommodations" over the weekend of the retreat.
Scalia has also spent time at these retreats, and it is being claimed that BOTH should have recused themselves from the "Citizens United" case last year. 'Twould have made quite a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:50 AM

Actually, Clarence Thomas died 5 years ago and they sent his body to be "reworked" by the same people who "reworked" Ronnie Reagan's body after he died several months into his first term... Word on the street is that there has been some turnover at the very secret company that "reworks" people and the new folks aren't as good as the ones who did Reagan and they couldn't get Clarence's voice working correctly...

But all in all, they have what they needed... A reliable robot that votes with Scalia 100% of the time even if Thomas isn't really a human any more...

BTW, while I hated Reagan's policies, ya' have to admit that they "reworked" him up purdy good...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: ClaireBear
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 03:30 PM

It never made sense to me before why I knew the name "Halliburton" for luggage long before I heard it in any other context. At last, I am beginning to understand!

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:49 PM

Can we not use the term "Uncle Tom"? As much as I despise Thomas (and Scalia), I don't think we need to stoop that low.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:13 PM

When a judge asks for "clarification" he is seeking a logical conclusion of arguement which cannot be refuted so that appeal is negated. When a judge does not ask for same when warranted he shows incompetence in disregard for the law.

Simple? No.

Perhaps Clarey advises the other judges in chambers and wishes to remain the brain behind some of the pointed questions? Recall "Beyond a shadow of doubt." before you discard the question.

Clarey didn't get to the big show by being a dummie. Sure, he made some bad jokes but he can't be hung for them.

Yes, I did. Sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 06:18 PM

As someone well versed in the Constitution--at least, I *assume* he is--Thomas clearly knows to "plead the fifth." Like Shrub, perhaps another "fifth" could help?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Janie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 10:47 PM

I don't follow the Supreme Court closely. Is he also silent or nearly so with respect to written opinions?

That is what matters.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM

He asks no questions during the arguments in court.

NY Times story:

In the 20 years that ended in 2008, the justices asked an average of 133 questions per hourlong argument, up from about 100 in the 15 years before that.

"The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench," Professor Johnson said. Justice Antonin Scalia alone accounted for almost a fifth of the questions in the last 20 years.

Justice Thomas has said he finds the atmosphere in the courtroom distressing. "We look like 'Family Feud,' " he told the bar group.

Justice Thomas does occasionally speak from the bench, when it is his turn to announce a majority opinion. He reads from a prepared text, and his voice is a gruff rumble.

He does not take pains, as some of his colleagues do, to explain the case in conversational terms to the civilians in the courtroom. He relies instead on legal Latin and citations to subparts of statutes and regulations.
...
Justice Thomas routinely issues sweeping concurrences and dissents addressing topics that had not come up at argument.


~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:36 PM

Let's all remember he filled the seat of Thurgood Marshall. Actually "filled" is a poor choice of words. Its like being used to Filet Mignon and suddenly having to accept a White Castle as suitable replacement.

Geeziz......I apologize to White Castle. They are at least palatable...........Thomas is not.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:23 AM

Can we not use the term "Uncle Tom"? In light of his hiostory and his record and the definition of the term, please advise why this is inappropriate?

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: olddude
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM

He shut down for some reason, very sad indeed to hold an office that is so important to America ... I have no explanation either

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM

Also from the NY Times article:

He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like "Saving Private Ryan."

He talks freely about the burdens of the job.

"I tend to be morose sometimes," he told the winners of a high school essay contest in 2009. "There are some cases that will drive you to your knees."

Justice Thomas has given various and shifting reasons for declining to participate in oral arguments, the court's most public ceremony.

He has said, for instance, that he is self-conscious about the way he speaks. In his memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," he wrote that he had been teased about the dialect he grew up speaking in rural Georgia. He never asked questions in college or law school, he wrote, and he was intimidated by some fellow students.

Elsewhere, he has said that he is silent out of simple courtesy.

"If I invite you to argue your case, I should at least listen to you," he told a bar association in Richmond, Va., in 2000.

Justice Thomas has also complained about the difficulty of getting a word in edgewise. The current court is a sort of verbal firing squad, with the justices peppering lawyers with questions almost as soon as they begin their presentations.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:44 AM

The last arguments are the weakest. If others can get in, so can he. He is on the bench [in theory] for his erudition. If it is not shared with us, why is he there?

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:17 PM

My, my, my. I had no idea so many supreme court "experts" were Mudcat members!

"Clarence (Uncle Tom) Thomas holds the distinction (?) of being the least qualified person to be a justice in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court."

If anyone other than GreggieF had written that statement I would request evidence of the statement. Since it was he, what would be the point?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: GUEST,mark-s (on the road)
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:33 PM

Can we not use the term "Uncle Tom"? In light of his hiostory and his record and the definition of the term, please advise why this is inappropriate?

Because use of a term like this diminishes yourself and the credibility of your point of view.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:00 PM

Because use of a term like this diminishes yourself and the credibility of your point of view.

Because the term is innacurate, or becsuse you simply don't like it and the attendant facts?

And Douggie-Boy ! - 'taint only my opinion, but that of a significant number of scholars and anylists of the Court and its history. Being as you're a Supreme Court ignoramus ( or simply a general all 'round ignoramus for all seasons and right-wing idealogue) - enjoy your delusuions.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:29 PM

Thomas is certainly getting notice.... as is the awkwardness of having the entire Supreme Court being so immune from criticism. To be fair, Thomas ans Scalia are the first ones in ages to be pointed to as really 'partisan' and whose basic loyalty is called into question. (Had Bork been approved, he would no doubt be included).

   Judges may disagree, but they are not supposed to hang out & be paid in partisan policy groups...and the Koch brothers and Federalist Society are not exactly neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: GUEST,mark-s (on the road)
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:27 PM

Because the term is innacurate, or becsuse you simply don't like it and the attendant facts?

I do not know the attendant facts so I cannot comment.

I do think a term of opprobriam can never, on its face, be accurate or decsriptive.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:42 PM

It can be both but, in this discussion, is merely a distraction.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Janie
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:28 PM

Greg F.,

I am obliged to comment that your point of view might be taken more seriously if your comments displayed less heat and more light.

Your Uncle Tom comment regarding Justice Thomas strikes me as pretty bigoted.

I am not a conservative, nor am I a fan of Justice Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:15 PM

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? -- four opinions, via the NY Times:

The Lone Dissenter
Jamal Greene Jamal Greene, professor, Columbia Law School

A Matter of Personal Style
Orin Kerr Orin Kerr, George Washington Law School

Not Everyone Needs to Speak
Vikram Amar Vikram Amar, law professor, U.C. Davis

The Importance of Chiming In
Timothy R. Johnson Timothy R. Johnson, political scientist, University of Minnesota

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:37 PM

Guest Mark-s (on the road) "I do not know the attendant facts so I cannot comment."

No problem, Mark, lots of folks on this forum comment without knowing the facts. Check out any of Greg F's posts for example.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:08 PM

uncle tom -–noun
a black man considered by other blacks to be subservient to or to curry favor with whites.
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

Uncle Tom — n
A Black person whose behaviour towards White people is regarded as obsequious and servile
[C20: after the slave who is the main character of H.B. Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)]
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © Harper Collins

And, considering his record, this is inappropriate or not applicable because of what, precisely???

Thomas called Anita Hill a lot worse.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:25 PM

Douggie-Boy:

Try doing a web search: you'd be amazed at the facts available to you. Plenty more where this came from;

The American Bar Association rating of Thomas was the least favorable of any confirmed Supreme Court nominee dating back to the Eisenhower administration (most nominees receive unanimous "well qualified" evaluations). Merida, Kevin and Fletcher, Michael. Supreme Discomfort, p. 398 (Random House 2008).


Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women opposed the appointment based on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade...; p. 431

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:51 PM

Thomas remains silent because Scalia has forgotten how to talk without moving his lips.

Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:22 PM

Once and for all it was a reward! not a bribe.

Besides it actually is perfectly legal to bribe, pay, romance or give a Supreme Court Justice his wieght in gold. For all other federal judges ethic laws of conflict of interests and things like the Hatch act do apply. Not so for the High Court.

It is perfectly legal to be bought off by any means imaginable if you are one of the high nine. I kid you not.