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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks from the bench; libs in a frenzy
Twitchy ^ | 01/14/2013 | Twitchy Staff

Posted on 01/14/2013 11:19:28 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas cracked a joke about Yale law students during oral arguments today. He’s famous for his restraint and reticence on the bench. It’s been nearly seven years since he asked any questions — and every last liberal on Twitter is making sure you know it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clarencethomas; libhate; scotus

1 posted on 01/14/2013 11:19:34 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 01/14/2013 11:21:06 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Perhaps Justice Thomas would like to help secure a judicial review of O’s constitutional qualifications for office?


3 posted on 01/14/2013 11:24:47 AM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

I mean, now that he’s apparently woken up from his 7 year Rip Van Winkle imitiation....


4 posted on 01/14/2013 11:25:41 AM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

&#@$ the libs.


5 posted on 01/14/2013 11:29:56 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

No, he said they were evading that issue, remember? /s


6 posted on 01/14/2013 11:30:20 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
I hope you're joking.

Justice Thomas explained long ago the reasons for his general rule not to ask questions from the bench.

And a lot of lawyers appreciate that. Most questions from the bench are grandstanding, and it makes oral argument difficult.

7 posted on 01/14/2013 11:30:46 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Well, he IS there to do a job for us....

(and another 4 years of tearing apart/down this country is nothing to look forward to...)

(I do understand the “grandstanding” problem with some justices’ questioning... have never figured out why they do it since they are in those robes for life and they aren’t getting paid any more to make themselves look stupid...)


8 posted on 01/14/2013 11:34:58 AM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

yes indeed.... that IS precisely the biggest problem at the Supreme Court today...

(and, unless they’ve been threatened as many said when O went to meet with them in secret immediately upon assuming the throne in 2008..... unless that’s really true, there seems to be NO reason at ALL for them to avoid this, or any other major issue....)

well, Rome has been burning down for 4 years already, maybe just maybe, perhaps.. it may possible survive another 4? ?????


9 posted on 01/14/2013 11:37:15 AM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

SCOTUS isn’t evading anything. In fact, they’ve agreed to hear two “gay marriage” cases in March. “Gay marriage” is about as controversial as it gets.


10 posted on 01/14/2013 11:45:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

They already have three built in votes!


11 posted on 01/14/2013 12:17:35 PM PST by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

the courts have consistently avoided the constitutional eligibility for office issue, for starters


12 posted on 01/14/2013 12:27:25 PM PST by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Talk is cheap — cough- Roberts. It is votes that count.


13 posted on 01/14/2013 1:18:25 PM PST by dervish (either the vote was corrupt or the electorate is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He who knows does not speak. - Lao Tsu


14 posted on 01/14/2013 2:06:10 PM PST by TexasKamaAina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nobody in particular

A lawyer for the state was making the case for the inmate’s appointed counsel, saying the woman was “more than qualified” and “very impressive.”

“She was graduate of Yale Law School, wasn’t she?” said Justice Antonin Scalia in apparent support, noting another member of the legal team went to Harvard.

The next words were hard to hear in the back-and-forth between the justices. But Thomas made a joke about the competence of Yale lawyers when compared to their Harvard colleagues, according to two witnesses.


15 posted on 01/14/2013 4:59:03 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
SCOTUS isn’t evading anything.

If it's not a constitutional issue, that's exactly what they should do - evade and avoid it because it's a states' issue. The only time SCOTUS should grant certiorari on a non-Constitutional issue is to overturn a lower federal court ruling and remand to the state court.

Gay marriage is not a Constitutional issue, it's a states' issue.

16 posted on 01/14/2013 6:03:43 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Here’s hoping that Justice Thomas picks up the baton and runs like the wind with it.


17 posted on 01/14/2013 8:02:43 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Gay marriage is not a Constitutional issue, it's a states' issue.

Actually, it's a matter of the laws of nature and of nature's God, which precedes and supersedes both.

18 posted on 01/14/2013 11:37:53 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
it's a matter of the laws of nature and of nature's God, which precedes and supersedes both

That's fine. In the meantime, SCOTUS needs to remand these kinds of cases to the states where they belong.

19 posted on 01/15/2013 4:44:00 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Depends on the merits of the individual case.

I would think that in many, if not most, instances you would be correct, but I can imagine quite a few circumstances in which such questions impinge on the legitimate constitutional role of the general government.

After all, the ultimate self-stated purpose of that Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity,” and it is absolutely impossible to fulfill such a purpose if the natural family has been destroyed.

The institution of marriage is the most fundamental God-given building block of our whole civilization. This is true governmentally, societally, and even economically.

It’s a matter of self-preservation.

As they rightfully say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It cannot be.

But, in any case, at no time should any officer of the general government, in any branch, recognize marriage as being anything except that which it is and has always been, the joining together of one man and one woman.

To do so is to have stepped into the realm of chaos, unreality, and lawlessness.

Let me remind you that the framers themselves made it clear that the Constitution did not pretend to delineate, to enumerate, every right.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Few matters deal with natural right more fundamentally than the question of natural marriage.

Just because the framers didn’t foresee that their offspring could depart so far from morality that such things would even be in question that doesn’t change the nature of basic wrong and right.


20 posted on 01/15/2013 5:27:41 AM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

It’s a God issue and everyone knows it.

God created them male and female. “Go forth and multiply.”


21 posted on 01/15/2013 7:59:33 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
it is absolutely impossible to fulfill such a purpose if the natural family has been destroyed

The federal government was not created to fulfill such a purpose. It was created and limited to specific delegated powers designed to basically deal with issues external to the U.S. and judicially resolve Constitutional controversies. The Tenth Amendment confirms this purpose that "any power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Marriage and the family are simply not among the enumerated powers of Congress and, therefore, not a federal issue. It's a states' issue. Our country was created not for government to fix all our problems, but for government to protect our freedom to fix our own problems.

However, the federal government has made just about every part of your life and mine their business regardless of the Constitution. The income tax for instance has allowed government to invade our private lives that is none of their business. One of those things is if you're married (none of the government's business). Nevertheless, it is now unconstitutionally become their business. Just like all the other stuff, SCOTUS can now rule on a matter that is none of their constitutional business becasue SCOTUS will not declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. (The ability to tax income was from the 16th Amendment not an act of Congress. But implementation has been very unconstitutional becasue it has allowed the federal government powers not given it by the Constitution.)

22 posted on 01/15/2013 6:41:30 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It’s a God issue

Right, and it's a states' issue and a personal issue. But it is not a Constitutionally delegated issue of the Federal Government.

23 posted on 01/15/2013 6:48:36 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
it is absolutely impossible to fulfill such a purpose if the natural family has been destroyed

The federal government was not created to fulfill such a purpose. It was created and limited to specific delegated powers designed to basically deal with issues external to the U.S. and judicially resolve Constitutional controversies. The Tenth Amendment confirms this purpose that "any power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Marriage and the family are simply not among the enumerated powers of Congress and, therefore, not a federal issue. It's a states' issue. Our country was created not for government to fix all our problems, but for government to protect our freedom to fix our own problems.

However, the federal government has made just about every part of your life and mine their business regardless of the Constitution. The income tax for instance has allowed government to invade our private lives that is none of their business. One of those things is if you're married (none of the government's business). Nevertheless, it is now unconstitutionally become their business. Just like all the other stuff, SCOTUS can now rule on a matter that is none of their constitutional business becasue SCOTUS will not declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. (The ability to tax income was from the 16th Amendment not an act of Congress. But implementation has been very unconstitutional becasue it has allowed the federal government powers not given it by the Constitution.)

24 posted on 01/15/2013 6:51:38 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Uh, sorry. Somehow I sent that last reply to you by accident.


25 posted on 01/15/2013 6:53:37 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The federal government was not created to fulfill such a purpose.

The purposes of this government are stated right up front.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

26 posted on 01/15/2013 7:52:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The purposes of this government are stated right up front.

These are the purposes of the CONSTITUTION, not the government. The Constitution was established to PROTECT our freedoms from government, foreign and domestic. The government is not you friend - never has been never will be. The Constitution created a government that was carefully limited. Our founders knew all to well that government is like a fox guarding the hen house, so the Constitution put a strong and short chain on the fox.

After 250 years, the chain has been rendered almost useless and the fox is now in the hen house wreaking havoc.

27 posted on 01/16/2013 4:54:02 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

This government is empowered only by We the People via the Constitution, so I don’t know what you mean. The document’s stated purposes are the legitimate purposes of this government.

And the sodomite agenda is destructive of every single clause of that statement of purpose.


28 posted on 01/16/2013 5:23:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Right, and it's a states' issue and a personal issue. But it is not a Constitutionally delegated issue of the Federal Government.

It could be a federal constitutional issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Equal Protection Clause (rational basis test).

29 posted on 01/16/2013 5:37:18 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I don’t know what you mean

I mean that our Constitutional form of government establishes the rule of law, not the rule of man. The Constitution, not your good ideas or my good ideas or some tyrant's ideas, is "the Law of the Land". Today, you may want to ignore the limitation of the constitutionally delegated enumerated powers of the federal government so they'll do what you want. But by doing so, you've just abandoned the rule of law (the Constitution) for the rule of man. That's the first step down the slippery slope to tyranny. You've given the Federal government the OK to go beyond it's Constitutional boundaries and limitations. Today maybe it works for you and your values. Tomorrow it works for those who hate you and your values. And without the constraint of the Constitutional rule of law, the history of man shows that tyranny and loss of individual liberty (including loss of life and freedom to pursue your dreams) is right around the corner.

You and the the people of your state are free to deal with the sodomite agenda however you want. And states are doing (or trying to do) just that without unconstitutional interference from the federal government.

30 posted on 01/16/2013 6:09:04 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The document’s stated purposes are the legitimate purposes of this government.

Your confusing the Constitution with the government it creates. They are not one and the same. The Constitution IS your friend. It is actually an anti-government document that creates and at the same time severely limits the powers of the federal government. The U.S. Constitution is based on the principles spelled out in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are derived from God not from man or his government. This is one of the key distinctions between the Constitution and the government it created. Government never recognizes your God-given rights and liberties unless it's forced to and the Constitution forces it to do just that. The history of America is a story of how long and hard government has worked to take away your liberties and amass more and more power to itself. Government is always a taker. It will try to take as much power and money from you as it can.

The Constitution is a recognition of the need for a limited federal government to unify and protect America mainly from foreign governments. But as I said, your protector is very capable of being you oppressor. The Constitution is the only legal bulwark in America between your freedoms and a federal government that would love to gain more power by abridging your freedoms.

31 posted on 01/16/2013 6:26:10 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
It could be a federal constitutional issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Equal Protection Clause (rational basis test).

These would be issues to enforce the Constitutional requirements between the states, not excuses for the federal government to itself decide on issues like marriage or abortion or the million other things they have no business deciding.

32 posted on 01/16/2013 6:40:08 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

So, do you think Congress exceeded its lawful constitutional powers when it forbid entrance to the Union to Utah, and Idaho, and Arizona, and Oklahoma, unless they forever swore off plural marriage?

The Republican Party was expressly founded to combat what they called the “twin relics of barbarism,” slavery and polygamy.

Was that an unconstitutional foundation, in your opinion?


33 posted on 01/16/2013 6:52:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

No one defends the Constitution any more than me.

But, it is not a death pact.

And, there is basic right and wrong, based in the laws of nature and of nature’s God, that precede and supersede all human constitutions and laws.

This understanding was the basis for this republic.


34 posted on 01/16/2013 6:56:32 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
These would be issues to enforce the Constitutional requirements between the states, not excuses for the federal government to itself decide on issues like marriage or abortion or the million other things they have no business deciding.

Abortion is in violent opposition to the clearly-stated natural law assertions of self-evident truth of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, every single clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, and the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution.

State sovereignty does not trump the God-given, equal, unalienable rights of the people. Never has, never will. Those rights precede and supersede all. To claim otherwise is to dynamite all the foundations of American self-government, including its cornerstone.

The raison d'etre of government, ALL government, is to protect Life and Liberty.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

35 posted on 01/16/2013 7:14:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

-- John Adams

36 posted on 01/16/2013 7:18:36 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. … it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772

37 posted on 01/16/2013 7:20:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Marriage is of a unique, sublime, ineffable nature. It is a God-breathed mystery. It is among His greatest gifts to mankind, the nexus of His eternal plan and all true, lasting, earthly riches. It is the foundational building block of all decent civic, governmental institutions. It is the basis of all true economics. It breeds peace and prosperity. It is the great stabilizer of civilizations. It is the well-spring and nursery of posterity. It must be protected, or America will fail and fall.

It is so fundamental, it must be protected on every front.


38 posted on 01/16/2013 8:16:56 PM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The document’s stated purposes are the legitimate purposes of this government.

Government and the Constitution run at cross-purposes.

The purpose of Government is coercion of others.

The purpose of the Constitution is coercion of government.

The Constitution as the RULE OF LAW is the ONLY means of limiting who the government may coerce - it is the chain on the fox guarding the hen house. The chain has been broken and the results are plain for all to see.

Marriage...is so fundamental, it must be protected on every front.

To make marriage a federal issue, you need a Constitutional amendment. That kind of amendment could come back and bite you, but without it, you simply want the government to usurp its Constitutional limitations because of something you (and I) value very much.

I am not prepared to trade any value I hold dear for tyranny because in the end, tyranny will destroy everything I hold dear anyway.

39 posted on 01/17/2013 5:11:56 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Gay marriage is not a Constitutional issue, it's a states' issue.

Marriage becomes a federal issue if citizens of one state try to compel another state to recognize their relationship. Further, while it is often bad for courts to be overly proactive in addressing issues which are not relevant to immediate cases before them, accepting petitions for declaratory judgments is often good, since it allows people to know how the court would be likely to interpret various actions they might consider pursuing.

40 posted on 01/21/2013 3:43:45 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Marriage becomes a federal issue if citizens of one state try to compel another state to recognize their relationship.

That doesn't make the subject matter a federal issue. It only means upholding the full faith and credit of the state from which its citizen(s) journey to another state.

41 posted on 01/21/2013 5:43:56 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
That doesn't make the subject matter a federal issue. It only means upholding the full faith and credit of the state from which its citizen(s) journey to another state.

The "full faith and credit" clause gives Congress substantial authority to determine the effect of one state's actions in another state.

42 posted on 01/22/2013 9:25:59 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

OK. Somebody who speaks Twitter tell us what Justice Thomas said. All I saw on the site was gibberish.


43 posted on 01/22/2013 9:30:42 PM PST by gitmo ( If your theology doesn't become your biography it's useless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
The "full faith and credit" clause gives Congress substantial authority to determine the effect of one state's actions in another state.

But the clause DOESN'T give Congress FEDERAL power over the SUBJECT MATTER itself. The only subject matter this gives Congress power over is the enforcement of a state to recognize a individual's rights from his home state. The subject matter itself remains a states' issue.

44 posted on 01/23/2013 5:09:37 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The subject matter itself remains a states' issue.

If a state wants to declare that it recognizes a man's "marriage" to five dogs, a mule, a tractor, and the number 23, the federal government should have no authority to stop the state from doing so, but I would suggest that the federal government would be fully within its authority to preemptively specify that the sole obligation of any other state will be to, upon request and payment of such fee as the other state shall specify, not to exceed $1,000,000, give the requestor a sheet of paper bearing the words "The state of ____ recognizes that the state of ____ has declared ____ to be married to ___ [, ___, ___, and ___], for whatever that's worth."

45 posted on 01/23/2013 3:43:53 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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