Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? A entire term without speaking once during arguments
New York Times ^ | 02/17/2011

Posted on 02/17/2011 6:42:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2011 6:42:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Can a Supreme Court justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral arguments?

Click here for the discussion :

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/16/does-clarence-thomass-silence-matter/the-lone-dissenter


2 posted on 02/17/2011 6:43:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt......Abe Lincoln..........


3 posted on 02/17/2011 6:45:09 AM PST by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name. Want to have fun? Google your friend's names.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He never really has much, though, has he?


4 posted on 02/17/2011 6:45:36 AM PST by RockinRight (if the choice is between Crazy and Commie, I choose Crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Unlike Ginsburg at least Thomas stays awake during oral argument.


5 posted on 02/17/2011 6:45:49 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Jamal Greene is an associate professor at Columbia Law School and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens."

All you need to know about this "professor"...
6 posted on 02/17/2011 6:46:05 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He’s the best justice on the bench, by far. Scalia is a good talker, but when his own pet views are involved, he folds (see Raich or Playboy for examples. Hell, see any case where Scalia and Thomas were on opposite ends, and you’ll find yourself agreeing with Thomas.)


7 posted on 02/17/2011 6:46:37 AM PST by Huck (one per-center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Does the 'soft' (actually quite blatant unadulterated racism) bigotry of low expectations of the NYT matter?
8 posted on 02/17/2011 6:47:38 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There’s nothing wrong with listening. Silent Cal was a damn fine president and a man of very few words.


9 posted on 02/17/2011 6:49:05 AM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


That tagline says all I need to know about the article...no need to waste time reading such drivel!

10 posted on 02/17/2011 6:49:21 AM PST by Nat Turner (I can see NOVEMBER 2012 from my house....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Also attributed to Mark Twain and Ralph Waldo Emerson.


11 posted on 02/17/2011 6:49:21 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
New York Times? Get a rope.

It might be a worthwhile discussion if it was in a paper with a wider readership, like the Tri-State Defender or any law journal.

12 posted on 02/17/2011 6:50:35 AM PST by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I'll take a quiet thinker over an incessant babbler any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
13 posted on 02/17/2011 6:50:46 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve read some of his opinions, and they’re good enough for me. It seems to me, too, that everything that needs to be presented to an appellate-type court can, and should be, presented in writing, and in such a way that nothing should require verbal clarification.


14 posted on 02/17/2011 6:51:01 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Listening is how you learn, not by blabbing


15 posted on 02/17/2011 6:51:06 AM PST by therightliveswithus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

16 posted on 02/17/2011 6:51:17 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Playboy case? I don’t remember that one - what happened and how did Scalia/Thomas rule?


17 posted on 02/17/2011 6:51:29 AM PST by RockinRight (if the choice is between Crazy and Commie, I choose Crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

They prolly saw it on each other’s Facebook page............


18 posted on 02/17/2011 6:51:29 AM PST by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name. Want to have fun? Google your friend's names.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Part of a coordinated attack on Justice Thomas (see the controversy about his wife’s income and the petition re Citizen’s United) to disqualify him from participating in the upcoming ObamaCare case.

...and it’s racist.


19 posted on 02/17/2011 6:52:51 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

An empty barrel makes the most noise.


20 posted on 02/17/2011 6:53:39 AM PST by ZULU (No nation which ever attempted to tolerate Islam, escaped total Islamization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Style varies of course, but few questions are asked for the purpose of information. Oral argument has very little impact in most cases.


21 posted on 02/17/2011 6:54:11 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I really don’t care what he says or doesn’t say, it’s how he votes that matters.


22 posted on 02/17/2011 6:55:31 AM PST by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wish Obama would learn from his example.


23 posted on 02/17/2011 6:55:45 AM PST by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’d rather that Justice Thomas listen well as he appears to do. His final analysis most certainly outdoes the liberal chicken-lipped justices currently infesting the court. If you want an example of a fine African American intellectual, it is most certainly Justice Thomas.

On the other hand, if one wants an example of an AA t*rd, just wait for the next White House brief.


24 posted on 02/17/2011 6:56:55 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In the meantime the two dingbats speak enough for the entire court.


25 posted on 02/17/2011 6:56:59 AM PST by Carley (ARAB STREET NO DIFFERENT THAN AMERICA'S LEFT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot
I really don’t care what he says or doesn’t say, it’s how he votes that matters.

Amen

26 posted on 02/17/2011 6:57:07 AM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - World Disaster Map)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The New York Times hates conservatives. Nuff said...


27 posted on 02/17/2011 6:58:34 AM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - World Disaster Map)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: therightliveswithus

I know someone who is an compulsive talker, he is dumber than a box of rocks and I am related to him.


28 posted on 02/17/2011 7:00:16 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nat Turner

Your tagline nails it the mostest, hands down!


29 posted on 02/17/2011 7:01:44 AM PST by caprock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat
I think you are right about Justice Thomas being a target to get him disqualified from the ObamaCare case.
He is the easiest target because he is a black and married to a white woman. Typical of the left, they think they can peel off opponents of ObamaCare because any such opponents are racist.
30 posted on 02/17/2011 7:02:48 AM PST by Tupelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

RE: Silent Cal was a damn fine president and a man of very few words.


Dorothy Parker to President Coolidge: “I made a bet with a friend that I could get you to say more than two words.”.

Coolidge: “You lose!”


Many years later....

Dorothy Parker on being told of Coolidge’s death : “How can you tell?”


31 posted on 02/17/2011 7:03:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Unlike Ginsburg at least Thomas is sane. I will also take Thomas over the so called constitutional scholar who rambles incoherently without a teleprompter.
32 posted on 02/17/2011 7:03:58 AM PST by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Beside this whole non-issue being a racist attack against Justice Thomas, whom they believe to be the weakest conservative, because of his color and failure to get back on the plantation when threatened.

The whole concept of the Court to HEAR oral argument is for the court to hear the best each side has to offer, not to insert new issues into the case or to help one side or the other to impress the Court. Insertion of judicial opinion during argument can easily insert political argument into the meaning of a decision long before the facts are weighed.


33 posted on 02/17/2011 7:04:18 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Like they wouldn't be attacking him regardless of how much or how little he spoke during court proceedings?
34 posted on 02/17/2011 7:08:07 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This guy got the Zot.

No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence [featuring an affirmative action zot]

The poster stated that Thomas was an affirmative action hire. This was also a NYTimes article. The left wants him gone.

The thing is, they elected an affirmative action president. And he ISN'T qualified. Thomas is.

35 posted on 02/17/2011 7:08:22 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

There is no reason to ask questions if the Constitutional issue is clear cut from the beginning. It is not like the written arguments don’t cover every possible base.

In reading the comments of most Justices, it appears that they are mainly intended to create the illusion that they are great moral arbitrators, when in fact, they are only intended to rule on the law.


36 posted on 02/17/2011 7:12:43 AM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Once again proving that The NYSlimes™ is one of the great racist institutions in this country...


37 posted on 02/17/2011 7:15:33 AM PST by JohnLongIsland (time to get out of ny => 135 days and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

You learn more by listening than by talking.


38 posted on 02/17/2011 7:17:09 AM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Oral argument is primarily just a disguised debate between the justices themselves, or an attempt to get nifty sound bite quotes to justify a decision the justice has already reached, or simply a justice wanting to have a bit of fun.


39 posted on 02/17/2011 7:18:06 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Most of the ‘legal opinions’ are rendered by their aides anyway. The judges just vote aye or nay according to the instructions given them by their political masters. IMHO


40 posted on 02/17/2011 7:19:19 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

ObamaCare, and by extension Obama’s entire “legacy”, is in jeopardy. The current make-up of the SC is problematic and they need to knock off just one judge.

Citizens United is a non-starter and Ginny’s income disclosure is a tempest-in-a-teapot.

Smells like desperation.


41 posted on 02/17/2011 7:19:47 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Here it is:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZD.html

It was a first amendment case. Weird case. Thomas in the 5-4 majority with Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Scalia dissenting, along with Breyer, O’Connor, and Rehnquist.


42 posted on 02/17/2011 7:20:00 AM PST by Huck (one per-center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The times can rail all they want about Clarence Thomas.
He is appointed for life.


43 posted on 02/17/2011 7:21:46 AM PST by Texas resident (Hunkered Down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Judge should not be arguing the case before him. The attorneys present their case, the judge decides. If the attorneys are too stupid and inept to present all the facts in clear and concise terms, shame on them.


44 posted on 02/17/2011 7:33:06 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg saws logs during Supreme Court case, media ignores
45 posted on 02/17/2011 7:41:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Supreme Court Cases are mostly about the review of court records from lower courts. Questioning appears to be aimed at changing other judge’s minds, not about learning more about the case.


46 posted on 02/17/2011 7:51:29 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Oral arguments at that level are nothing but theater. Everything that is important should be in the briefs. Now, if I discovered he didn’t actually read the relevant briefs, that would be something completely different.


47 posted on 02/17/2011 7:59:16 AM PST by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They should can arguments before the USSC anyhow. What a waste of time.


48 posted on 02/17/2011 10:21:36 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Only two things come from Texas and I see you're wearing an "I Heart Austin" t-shirt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
If the attorneys are too stupid and inept to present all the facts in clear and concise terms, shame on them.

Unfortunately, cases are effectively decided on behalf not only of the actual litigants, but also on behalf of countless other people who are not parties to the case at hand but will be affected the precedent it sets.

49 posted on 02/17/2011 4:32:35 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Justice Clarence Thomas can speak when he wishes to speak.

While I would very much like to hear more from him I’m not about to tell him he has to speak up.


50 posted on 02/21/2011 7:54:54 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson