BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas

14 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM (#3095146)
Subject: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomes
From: Wesley S

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.

---

14 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM (#3095156)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Wesley S

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

---

14 Feb 11 - 01:32 PM (#3095163)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D

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.

---

14 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM (#3095168)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer

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

---

14 Feb 11 - 02:01 PM (#3095178)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.

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.

---

14 Feb 11 - 04:36 PM (#3095281)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: kendall

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

---

14 Feb 11 - 10:11 PM (#3095438)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle

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.

---

14 Feb 11 - 10:48 PM (#3095449)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D

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.

---

15 Feb 11 - 07:50 AM (#3095585)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bobert

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~

---

15 Feb 11 - 03:30 PM (#3095887)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: ClaireBear

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!

---

15 Feb 11 - 04:49 PM (#3095942)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: mousethief

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.

---

15 Feb 11 - 05:13 PM (#3095963)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: gnu

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.

---

15 Feb 11 - 06:18 PM (#3096025)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: saulgoldie

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

---

15 Feb 11 - 10:47 PM (#3096148)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Janie

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

That is what matters.

---

15 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM (#3096154)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer

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

---

15 Feb 11 - 11:36 PM (#3096161)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: catspaw49

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

---

16 Feb 11 - 10:23 AM (#3096474)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.

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?

---

16 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM (#3096483)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: olddude

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

---

16 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM (#3096509)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer

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.

---

16 Feb 11 - 11:44 AM (#3096533)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle

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?

---

16 Feb 11 - 05:17 PM (#3096725)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: DougR

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

---

16 Feb 11 - 05:33 PM (#3096733)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: GUEST,mark-s (on the road)

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

---

16 Feb 11 - 07:00 PM (#3096784)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.

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.

---

16 Feb 11 - 07:29 PM (#3096798)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Bill D

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.

---

16 Feb 11 - 10:27 PM (#3096859)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: GUEST,mark-s (on the road)

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.

---

16 Feb 11 - 10:42 PM (#3096862)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: EBarnacle

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

---

16 Feb 11 - 11:28 PM (#3096872)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Janie

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.

---

17 Feb 11 - 12:15 PM (#3097241)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Desert Dancer

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

---

17 Feb 11 - 12:37 PM (#3097260)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: DougR

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

---

18 Feb 11 - 12:25 PM (#3098054)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Greg F.

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

---

18 Feb 11 - 01:51 PM (#3098111)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: mousethief

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

---

18 Feb 11 - 02:22 PM (#3098128)
Subject: RE: BS: The silence of Clarence Thomas
From: Donuel

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.

---