I am liking Justice Thomas...CBS 60 Minutes

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CPA
I loved his comments concerning abortion and the constitution. It was refreshing and made me feel confident that the Supreme Court is in good hands right now.

And as for the black/white issue, Thomas' response was that he was a man first, and an American and human being. And it's obvious some of you commenting did not watch the interview to see where his views come from and how he grew up. Your opinion may be different.

Applying context is a bannable offence. J/K 😛

 

[Thump553]

Got to agree with DonVito's analysis here-Justice Thomas is a true disappointment to anyone who looks at competence as the main requirement for a jurist, rather than the correct political viewpoints.

I also greatly question why he has chosen now to bring up the whole Anita Hill/sexual harassment thing all over again. Most members of this board are probably too young to even remember Thomas' confirmation hearings. He is the ONLY sitting US justice to ever publish an authobiography while still on the bench. Why muddy the waters again? He brings up nothing new and merely makes himself look bad once more. The motivation must be the seven figure advance the conservative group gave him for this book.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
you're acting quite childish. I think white people should ask themselves what everyone else should; "Will republicans make jeebus come back or should I vote for somebody that is actually interested in helping a plurality of americans". I wonder how annoyed white people would get if people made comments like Billy.

who's acting childish? jeebus? You won't even use the right word because your such a chickeshit.

.



so, let me guess, in your world being promised OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY is what your keen on, not believing in something better than yourself. More people of God are willing to help a plurality of Americans than ANY POLITICIAN.

You do not help by taking other people's stuff and giving it away. That isn't helping, its theft followed by bribery. If that is your morals then go live in your cesspool but don't bother talking who is childish and who isnt/

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
Gee the responses in this thread are no surprise.

would the responses from a right be any different if it were about a liberal judge?

it's just a shame that the entire SC has been changed into this total partisan and political machine... I'm tired of all these 5:4 votes.

Yes, because Thomas is right about one thing, the self-proclaimed progressives are the most vicious people seen since Souther Lynch mobs. Fact is they are worse.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DonVito
Clarence Thomas was ill-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and has, since his appointment, done nothing to distinguish himself. It seems to me he arguably DID play the race card during his confirmation process by referring to it as a "high-tech lynching."

you know, your parroting everything he brought up as wrong with the elists...


care to prove he is ill-qualified? Betcha you for everything you hold against him I can find one or more Justices with less.

People like you are todays white hooded jerks

You've got some balls accusing me of racism for not supporting Clarence Thomas. Actually I just successfully litigated a police civil rights case for my African-American client - we got the largest punitive-damages award in state history against a cop. Our case was on the front page yesterday, for the third time.

A quick review of Clarence Thomas' resume reveals he is the least-qualified SC Justice appointed in my lifetime (hence the fact that the ABA rated him as such when he was nominated). No attorney will disagree he was marginally qualified as a SC nominee. This really isn't a controversial subject, and I don't think my post is motivated by politics - if you search you will find that I posted nothing but glowing things about John Roberts' qualifications, and that I have also agreed that Alito is adequately qualified. If wanting my Supreme Court justices to be brilliant legal minds makes me an "elitist," I think every American should be one.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
Gee the responses in this thread are no surprise.

would the responses from a right be any different if it were about a liberal judge?

it's just a shame that the entire SC has been changed into this total partisan and political machine... I'm tired of all these 5:4 votes.

Yes, because Thomas is right about one thing, the self-proclaimed progressives are the most vicious people seen since Souther Lynch mobs. Fact is they are worse.

Yes, having political views that differ from you is worse than hanging or burning people alive.

 

[Stoneburner]

Shivetya, i have yet to see anything from you closely resembling intelligent thought. How do you go from speaking of clarence thomas to the typical paranoid right wing idiot rant about big government? You must be one of those mormon militia type freaks that flinches whenever he hears a word longer than 2 syllables. You say other justices are less qualified than him? Name one! Name one who has fewer law review articles, name one that has written less opinions since they joined the court. Maybe if you were a lawyer you'd understand what level of jurisprudence one should expect from a supreme court justice. You'd have to be braindead to claim that political thought has anything to do with it. Scalia is one, if the not the most accomplished justices. IT's not surprising that Thomas always hides under scalia and says "I concur". Why would you say "I bet a 100:1 the other justices are just as dumber!"

Look, you need to recognize the limits of your intelligence and stop throwing invective around because big words confuse you. Also, don't discuss things if you don't know things. Sit back, read, and learn.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DonVito
Clarence Thomas was ill-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and has, since his appointment, done nothing to distinguish himself. It seems to me he arguably DID play the race card during his confirmation process by referring to it as a "high-tech lynching."

you know, your parroting everything he brought up as wrong with the elists...


care to prove he is ill-qualified? Betcha you for everything you hold against him I can find one or more Justices with less.

People like you are todays white hooded jerks

You've got some balls accusing me of racism for not supporting Clarence Thomas. Actually I just successfully litigated a police civil rights case for my African-American client - we got the largest punitive-damages award in state history against a cop. Our case was on the front page yesterday, for the third time.

A quick review of Clarence Thomas' resume reveals he is the least-qualified SC Justice appointed in my lifetime (hence the fact that the ABA rated him as such when he was nominated). No attorney will disagree he was marginally qualified as a SC nominee. This really isn't a controversial subject, and I don't think my post is motivated by politics - if you search you will find that I posted nothing but glowing things about John Roberts' qualifications, and that I have also agreed that Alito is adequately qualified.

Don't we love to conflate issues? 😛
In no particular order

Issue 1: The qualifications of Clarence Thomas when he was selected.
Issue 2: The performance of Clarence Thomas while on the bench
Issue 3: The philsophies of Clarence Thomas while he serves as justice.

Jeebus and all that.

 

[UberNeuman]

I think the real issue is did he ever find someone to remove that pubic hair from his Coke?

 

[Pabster]

LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

 

[Stoneburner]

Weren't republicans complaining about harriet myers qualifications?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Weren't republicans complaining about harriet myers qualifications?

Yes, but only because she was a childless, unmarried, older woman. That means she's either a lesbian, or not doing her duty to start a family. Both major sins in the conservative realm. Ok, and she was unqualified as hell, but seriously, that was merely a convenient scapegoat.

Bill Maher:
And finally, New Rule: The Christian Right must 'fess up about what they really don't like about Harriet Miers. It's not that she's a cipher who lacks experience. My God, George Bush is your president! And his qualifications for high office were his name and his solemn pledge to not over-think sh**.

And it's not that you're not sure that she'll do your bidding on abortion. Does the cross around her neck have to light up for you? No, it's not that Harriet Miers' views are a mystery. It's that her genitalia are a mystery. You see, Republicans have issues with sex, or as they call it, "inserting pork."

Undefined sexuality in women makes them nervous. For Harriet Miers to have reached the age of 60, no kids, never married - ooh, gosh, we can't put our finger on it, and apparently neither can she.

What are you, Harriet? We need to know. We don't trust Bush anymore, so we're not going to play, "It's Pat" with you. Because there are only three possibilities if you've never married or had kids by 60. She's either an asexual figure, sort of like Clay Aiken without all the estrogen. You know, androgynous, like the way we thought about Michael Jackson back when we still liked his records. But this sort of barrenness is threatening to the Republican base because they're generally people who hate sex and are bad at it. So they fear that their own population will dwindle because there won't be enough Republicans willing to f*** each other.

Harriet Miers isn't using the equipment God gave her for making babies, and that's just wrong. It's like God giving you a beautiful garden and you not strip mining it for coal.

Now, possibility two is that Harriet Miers is a practicing lesbian, which is sinful if done correctly. But here's where it gets thorny, because if she's not a lesbian and she's not a virgin, well, then she must be a slut!

Among social conservatives, sex is to be tolerated only as long as it's joyless and toy-less, and, most importantly, within a marriage. But we certainly can't have jezebels like Harriet Miers - think they can just use their genitals for pleasure and then waltz onto the Supreme Court! What would we tell the children?

How about this? Why can't she just be somebody who likes to live alone? Not co-dependent. Single because she likes it. I hope Harriet Miers is having a rich, guilt-free sex life. You go, girl! That's what should be normal. Not Tom DeLay, whose dick gets hard when he f***s somebody out of something!

As for Harriet Miers, I don't care if she's a lesbian or a virgin or a slut or a - well, yes, there is a crazy fourth possibility, which is that she's one of those, you know, chicks with dicks. But if that were true, you'd think I'd have run into her in the chat rooms by now!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

nice use of the race card.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

I absolutely respect his accomplishments, but the reality is that his marginal qualifications and underwhelming intellect continue to pose problems because he is, well, a Supreme Court justice. My own view is that it's important to pick brilliant jurists (like John Roberts) for lifetime appointments that happen to carry enormous legal and political influence. Losing Marshall in favor of Thomas was a really shitty deal IMO.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

Typical Pabster straw man - it's not that liberals object to Thomas' low qualifications and his poor judgement, it's that he's republican.

I guess that's why we hate Eisenhower-appointed Earl Warren so much, too. Or, heck, the current republicans on the court other than the Federalist Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia.

Pabster, you can't argue here, because you can't stick to the issues. You demand to get to make up the liberals' positions for them and ignore what they say their positions are.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

I absolutely respect his accomplishments, but the reality is that his marginal qualifications and underwhelming intellect continue to pose problems because he is, well, a Supreme Court justice. My own view is that it's important to pick brilliant jurists (like John Roberts) for lifetime appointments that happen to carry enormous legal and political influence. Losing Blackmun in favor of Thomas was a really shitty deal IMO.

Don't you mean thurgood marshall. Thomas replaced him. Breyer replaced Blackmun.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

I absolutely respect his accomplishments, but the reality is that his marginal qualifications and underwhelming intellect continue to pose problems because he is, well, a Supreme Court justice. My own view is that it's important to pick brilliant jurists (like John Roberts) for lifetime appointments that happen to carry enormous legal and political influence. Losing Blackmun in favor of Thomas was a really shitty deal IMO.

I'm a big opponent of Roberts - talent does not count as much as the core values needed for him to not be one of these Federalist shills, IMO.

It's like electing those guys who make the trains run on time. They may do some things well, but to what ends?

In fact, I think that Roberts' abilities make him *worse*, since he uses them for wrong. This is much the way we'd be worse off if GWB had the abilities to actually be popular.

And as I recall, Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, not Blackmun - that was the point, the republicans wanted an 'in your face' black appointee to replace the only black justice.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

I absolutely respect his accomplishments, but the reality is that his marginal qualifications and underwhelming intellect continue to pose problems because he is, well, a Supreme Court justice. My own view is that it's important to pick brilliant jurists (like John Roberts) for lifetime appointments that happen to carry enormous legal and political influence. Losing Blackmun in favor of Thomas was a really shitty deal IMO.

Don't you mean thurgood marshall. Thomas replaced him. Breyer replaced Blackmun.

D'oh! Misspoke. Right you are.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster
LMAO at the haters on Thomas. Get a grip. He's a black man who has ascended to one of the most powerful positions in the country. I know it busts you lefties balls that Thomas has the gall to be Republican and speak out against the race-baiting and hypocrisy of the left, but you got to hand it to Thomas. This nonsense of "Was he qualified?" or "What about Anita?" ... get over yourselves.

I absolutely respect his accomplishments, but the reality is that his marginal qualifications and underwhelming intellect continue to pose problems because he is, well, a Supreme Court justice. My own view is that it's important to pick brilliant jurists (like John Roberts) for lifetime appointments that happen to carry enormous legal and political influence. Losing Blackmun in favor of Thomas was a really shitty deal IMO.

Don't you mean thurgood marshall. Thomas replaced him. Breyer replaced Blackmun.

D'oh! Misspoke. Right you are.

Don, what measure are you using to determine his intellect? He went to an Ivy League school, finished middle of the class, then served under the governor of Missouri for 10 years before moving up to Washington into several positions. Just because he isn't vocal, doesn't mean he's unintelligent. Marshall wasn't vocal either.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DonVito
Clarence Thomas was ill-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and has, since his appointment, done nothing to distinguish himself. It seems to me he arguably DID play the race card during his confirmation process by referring to it as a "high-tech lynching."

you know, your parroting everything he brought up as wrong with the elists...


care to prove he is ill-qualified? Betcha you for everything you hold against him I can find one or more Justices with less.

People like you are todays white hooded jerks

You've got some balls accusing me of racism for not supporting Clarence Thomas. Actually I just successfully litigated a police civil rights case for my African-American client - we got the largest punitive-damages award in state history against a cop. Our case was on the front page yesterday, for the third time.

A quick review of Clarence Thomas' resume reveals he is the least-qualified SC Justice appointed in my lifetime (hence the fact that the ABA rated him as such when he was nominated). No attorney will disagree he was marginally qualified as a SC nominee. This really isn't a controversial subject, and I don't think my post is motivated by politics - if you search you will find that I posted nothing but glowing things about John Roberts' qualifications, and that I have also agreed that Alito is adequately qualified. If wanting my Supreme Court justices to be brilliant legal minds makes me an "elitist," I think every American should be one.

Sweet jesus those cops went that crazy over 7 bucks? Good for you and your client. That is simply ridiculous.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Weren't republicans complaining about harriet myers qualifications?

Actually it was both sides. They went after her for never being a judge, screwing up in the Senate judiciary interviews, and the like. While she was recommended by people from both sides she didn't come across to Congress as she needed to, hence she withdrew as she saw the writing on the wall.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DonVito
Clarence Thomas was ill-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and has, since his appointment, done nothing to distinguish himself. It seems to me he arguably DID play the race card during his confirmation process by referring to it as a "high-tech lynching."

you know, your parroting everything he brought up as wrong with the elists...


care to prove he is ill-qualified? Betcha you for everything you hold against him I can find one or more Justices with less.

People like you are todays white hooded jerks

You've got some balls accusing me of racism for not supporting Clarence Thomas. Actually I just successfully litigated a police civil rights case for my African-American client - we got the largest punitive-damages award in state history against a cop. Our case was on the front page yesterday, for the third time.

A quick review of Clarence Thomas' resume reveals he is the least-qualified SC Justice appointed in my lifetime (hence the fact that the ABA rated him as such when he was nominated). No attorney will disagree he was marginally qualified as a SC nominee. This really isn't a controversial subject, and I don't think my post is motivated by politics - if you search you will find that I posted nothing but glowing things about John Roberts' qualifications, and that I have also agreed that Alito is adequately qualified. If wanting my Supreme Court justices to be brilliant legal minds makes me an "elitist," I think every American should be one.

Sweet jesus those cops went that crazy over 7 bucks? Good for you and your client. That is simply ridiculous.

Actually the article states it wasn't a civil rights case, merely an excessive force case. So I still think you're a racist. j/k 🙂

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Shivetya, i have yet to see anything from you closely resembling intelligent thought.......You must be one of those mormon militia type freaks that flinches whenever he hears a word longer than 2 syllables........Look, you need to recognize the limits of your intelligence and stop throwing invective around because big words confuse you. Also, don't discuss things if you don't know things. Sit back, read, and learn.

You know, I can understand the occasional "moron" bandied about, but this Stoneburner fellow reeks of self-reflected projection.

 

[Stoneburner]

I said "Mormon militia". You moron 🙂 (jk)

And shivyeta always says the same thing in every thread. It's either "parrot" or "Moonbat" and "traitors" and "camel herding bedouin aboriginals".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Shivetya, i have yet to see anything from you closely resembling intelligent thought.......You must be one of those mormon militia type freaks that flinches whenever he hears a word longer than 2 syllables........Look, you need to recognize the limits of your intelligence and stop throwing invective around because big words confuse you. Also, don't discuss things if you don't know things. Sit back, read, and learn.

You know, I can understand the occasional "moron" bandied about, but this Stoneburner fellow reeks of self-reflected projection.

I can imagine what it says about me but I agree with both you and Stoneburner here.