breaking! Clarence Thomas speaks for the first time n 7 years

Justice Thomas hasn't spoken in the Court since February 2006... today, he finally broke his long-held silence.

to tell a joke. ](*,)

Quote:

---

Justice Clarence Thomas did something at a Supreme Court argument Monday for the first time in nearly seven years — he spoke.

But what Thomas said is not clear, other than he appears to have joked about Ivy League lawyers...

Two lawyers in the courtroom said Thomas was joking about Ivy League law school graduates, although one said it was at the expense of Thomas' alma mater, Yale, and the other said rival Harvard was the butt of the joke.

Thomas hasn't asked a question in court since February 22, 2006.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013...s.html?hp&_r=0

a quality Jurist and a true credit to the court. ..| :rolleyes:

non news lol ........... a slow day?

Thomas is pretty worthless. He receives a salary of $213,900 for sitting on his ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CowboyBob

Thomas is pretty worthless. He receives a salary of $213,900 for sitting on his ass.

---

CBB...You're Back!!!...We've missed you and Happy New Year!!!

And Thomas is not only pretty worthless he's a disgrace...All the justices make is $213G's? I expected more than that.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterMajestic

CBB...You're Back!!!...We've missed you and Happy New Year!!!

And Thomas is not only pretty worthless he's a disgrace...All the justices make is $213G's? I expected more than that.....

---

Yes, he's a disgrace. He's a Pappy Bush's legacy we're unfortunately suffering from. Both of those Bushes fucked up the country pretty bad. Proof that republicans can't learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CowboyBob

Yes, he's a disgrace. He's a Pappy Bush's legacy we're unfortunately suffering from. Both of those Bushes fucked up the country pretty bad. Proof that republicans can't learn.

---

he also gave us David Souter... I'd say it's a wash for GHWB, one liberal and one conservative appointment.

but as much deference as I think should be given to the POTUS when it comes to nominations, Clarence Thomas is probably the epitome of someone who should have been filibustered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CowboyBob

Thomas is pretty worthless. He receives a salary of $213,900 for sitting on his ass.

---

Yeah, welcome home and Happy New Year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loki81

Justice Thomas hasn't spoken in the Court since February 2006... today, he finally broke his long-held silence.

to tell a joke. ](*,)

---

His autobiography? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CowboyBob

Yes, he's a disgrace. He's a Pappy Bush's legacy we're unfortunately suffering from. Both of those Bushes fucked up the country pretty bad. Proof that republicans can't learn.

---

Selection of Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall was the height of cynicism....Message? We've got our N_____R too! :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPmBPvHzF2c

I think I like him better with his mouth shut. He should keep it that way.

He proved how mentally sick he is when he lied about Anita Hill---the woman had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth about this self loathing hypocrite.

This was Bush#1 choice for the court. Just like Bush was pushed to chose Danny Boy for his VP. Bush was pushe dto pick Thomas to the court.

One hopes that Thomas represents the nadir in appointments to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisrobin

Selection of Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall was the height of cynicism....Message? We've got our N_____R too! :(

---

Do you think anybody wanna see that YoutTube crap? You and Rareboy have this odd fixation with ramming white guys in Black-face down our throats. Nobody wants to see the pictures and we don't want to see the videos. Trying to sell this as a visual aid is not working.

Use your energy and your keyboard/mouse for something worth-while. Stop searching for that garbage. I'm starting to think it's a turn-on for the both of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterMajestic

Do you think anybody wanna see that YoutTube crap?

---

Yes..

Quote:

---

You and Rareboy have this odd fixation with ramming white guys in Black-face down our throats.

---

You have missed the point of the post. Google "cynicism" and "metaphor"

Quote:

---

Nobody wants to see the pictures and we don't want to see the videos
Trying to sell this as a visual aid is not working.

---

Do you represent the vox populi?

Quote:

---

Use your energy and your keyboard/mouse for something worth-while*.

---

My energy is mine to use as I please.

Quote:

---

Stop searching for that garbage.

---

I don't have to search. See GOP.

Quote:

---

I'm starting to think it's a turn-on for the both of you.

---

You are not qualified to judge what is a turn-on and what is not.





Better?

I recall Justice Thomas saying that his reticence in speaking at the oral arguments before the Supreme Court to be related to two factors:
1. his growing up in the racist south, where he learn not to say things that racist people would throw back in his face, and
2. the fact that he does not glean much information about the constitutionality of an issue beyond hearing the parties present their stories. He seems not to be impressed by answers given to questions from the bench.

If someone can quote one of his written opinions with which the disagree, fine...but if this is all you people have, well...I am just going to have to conclude that you are racists.

He's a token, whooped doo. :rolleyes:

Oh, one more thing. I have read that Justice Thomas believes that peppering the attorneys in court is not only impolite, but does not affect the dedision. The justices, for the most part, have already made up their minds before they arrive at the oral arguments.

So, not only is Thomas a first-rate jurist; he is also polite. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev

Oh, one more thing. I have read that Justice Thomas believes that peppering the attorneys in court is not only impolite, but does not affect the dedision. The justices, for the most part, have already made up their minds before they arrive at the oral arguments.

So, not only is Thomas a first-rate jurist; he is also polite. Go figure.

---

Wrong. Thomas is the most extremely conservative justice next to Scalia on the Supreme Court. His decision always side with the Republican mantra. His ethics have been questionable, and he is one of the most reviled Supreme Court justices on the bench for siding against minorities such as you and I:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/11/141246...e-on-the-court

And it is because of his extreme Republican (not conservative) views, that you are siding with him now.

Nice try, Just, but the Republicans helped increase the deficit when they controlled Congress and held the Presidency...hardly a conservative position.

Justice Thomas is certainly an Originalist. He does not believe in a "Living Constitution".

I agree, Kev. That's why I am saying Republicans are not conservatives. Real conservatives would not have passed unfunded tax cuts paid for in borrowed money. Real conservatives would not have entered in two wars they could not pay for. Real conservatives would have never passed one of the worst infringements of individual freedom and liberty: The Patriot Act. The Republican party does not represent conservatism. As a registered Democrat, I am more conservative than the Republican leadership. I'm glad we see eye to eye.

An "originalist" is an unrecognized, self-described paradox that is inconsistent with the passage of time. An originalist would have kept slavery. After all, it was part of the original Constitution. Clarence Thomas is black, therefore in his own view, he should not be a Supreme Court justice or even a citizen of the United States. Hence, the paradox why this self-description lacks a political following of legitimate merit, and is generally unrecognized in political spectrums.

Originalists don't believe that things cannot change, that the Constitution has to remain the way it was when passed; they believe that you can amend the constitution to, say, abolish slavery. Thank goodness that happened, eh?

^ Do you have a citation that appropriately defines Originalism, and one that links to the belief system you are attributing Clarence Thomas to believe in? Your insistence that Thomas does not believe in a "Living Constitution" is contradictory to the fundamental change that the abolition of slavery was to the U.S. Constitution. It was the first time in American history, where one amendment literally crossed out the other.

Otherwise, I can only assume you're making this up as you go in your own interpretation of how you believe the U.S. Constitution should be followed, and an opinion of how you think Clarence Thomas views law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterMajestic

Do you think anybody wanna see that YoutTube crap? You and Rareboy have this odd fixation with ramming white guys in Black-face down our throats. Nobody wants to see the pictures and we don't want to see the videos. Trying to sell this as a visual aid is not working.

Use your energy and your keyboard/mouse for something worth-while. Stop searching for that garbage. I'm starting to think it's a turn-on for the both of you.

---

I would have to say that you seem to be as thick as a block of cheese when it comes to understanding the purpose of me posting the picture of Al Jolson.

You seem to have no ability to understand context or to appreciate that when the pic is posted...it is a commentary on how the white guys (in the case you are referring to in my instance, they were Republicans trying to make themselves seem more 'black' by expressing their fondness for black music or black cuisine in order to appeal to the black voters) seem to think that being black in America means. For many of these crackers....their idea of blackness is something that white people can just paint on their face...or ideas....or institutions and that that will be good enough to pass for black or to satisfy the blacks that they are being represented.



And this is pretty much what they did with the Thomas appointment to the bench. Fortunately the times have changed and now that the US actually elected, a black president...hopefully these days of Uncle Tomming and window dressing are over.

But you seem to be tone deaf on this, as well as so many other things. This kind of stuff just seems to fly right over your head.

JB, the legal abolition of slavery in this country occurred due to a constitutional amendment (no cite needed...if you don't believe it, you look it up). This is not an example of a "Living Constitution", which implies Supreme Court Justices just deciding that they think the Constitution says x, y, or z because that is just how they feel. Originalists view the Constitution in light of how the issues were decided at the time they were decided.

Nice abs in your avat, by the way.