If he does not like oral arguments then he should just resign from the court. After all, the main function of the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments from the parties in a case and make rulings based on those arguments. If he is not going to participate in the process then he should step down from the court.

I'm not a fan of Justice Thomas AT ALL, but he can (in theory) do his job perfectly well without asking questions during oral argument, and not asking questions during oral argument is hardly "not participating in the process." Everybody before the Court submits voluminous written briefing on the issues, and all of the justices read the briefing, discuss the issues with their clerks and the other justices, and participate in the voting. The oral argument is just a chance for the justices to clear up any questions that the briefing raised for them. A lot of appellate courts don't even do oral argument for every case.

Shannon - The implication being that he thinks he already has all the answers. Or he isn't intelligent enough to know what questions to ask. Or he is simply very insecure.

@Shannon

Right. Theoretically, it's not necessary to actually go to class to learn law, since there are volumes and volumes of documented cases and interpreted theory about them. Oral arguments are just a chance to clear up any questions. Theoretically, you don't need to go out your doorstep to know everything you need to know about life either.

Well, the country can rest easy knowing there were no questions worth asking clarification about in any court case in 7 years to reach the level of the Supreme Court.

WOW, four words in seven years! We really got our monies worth on this flake!

In another seven years maybe we can get a complete paragraph!

It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Thomas is an idiot and little more than Scalia's legal lap dog. He is a disgrace to our nation's highest court. The sooner he is gone the better and he needs to take his pathetic, moronic wife with him when he goes.

I believed Anita Hill then and I believe her now. Thomas is the worst justice ever appointed.

Justice Thomas is a joke. The reason he does not participate in oral arguments by asking questions is because he votes the way the right wing judges vote 100% of the time. Easy job. Don't even have to do any research. Just ask one of the other right wing judges how they are going to vote and cast his vote the same way.

Bluelake

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

So, then, there is still some doubt that Thomas is a fool? So I can give him the benefit of that doubt? Nah, whom am I kidding - he's a doorknob. His wife is w a y saner than he-and she's out there!

I am absolutely no fan of Thomas and I tend to believe Anita Hill. But Shannon got it right with his comment.

Voluminous is exactly right and it is entirely possible that he studies the written briefs closely enough to not need to ask questions. Lack of questioning doesn't mean he is not actively involved in every other phase of the judiciary process.

He said four words? And this makes headline news? No mention of a pubic hair, on a soda can? Oh no, that's more than four words. I bet he is better with braille!

Nuts!

From the "teaser" for this article on the MSN.com main page, "Justice breaks seven-year silence," I was hoping this story would be related to the farting Social Security worker story from the other day.

At least then it would have been interesting!

A mute lawyer, normally this would be a blessing.

more than a flake...a sexual harasser. He would never have been hired in most workplaces bases on testimony of people who worked with and for him in the past.

Worm Meat - I don't see a single comment up there that says anything about race. I see questions about whether or not he's really doing his job, given that he never has questions for the presenting attornies. The closest I see to racial comments is the Anita Hill jokes, and even those aren't really racist.

And to get ahead of your inevitable responses, I don't consider most questions about Pres. Obama's competence to be racist, although I do consider that to be the likely core for most of the "birther" crap.

Of course, Anita Hill told the truth. Why is it so hard to believe. I'm sure there's not one women on this board who hasn't been hit on by a male superior or colleague. Anyone who saw that hearing had to come to the same conclusion.

The reason he doesn't talk is because no one thought he was qualified for the court in the first place. An awful guy.

his teacher was Ricky Roma who told him: "You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is"

unfortunately he is still trying to figure out what his job is hahhahaha

Worm meat--it is not racist to suggest that a Supreme Court Justice should be involved enough in the cases brought before the court to ask a question or make a comment to a lawyer arguing before the court. The fact that he made a statement--not even a question--is newsworthy because it points up his lack of involvement. This would be absolutely true regardless of the person's race.

Seriously, think about the fact that he hears cases day in and day out and virtually NEVER has anything to ask or comment on. It's truly incredible!

Wponder if he is as reserved while attending Koch Brother's retreats? Bet he sings like a canary!

Note.

Justice Thomas is most frequently the author of the desenting or majority Opinion.

Apparently, there is great merit in the old saying keep your eyes and ears open, and your big mouth shut!

I think most of the posts above show just why this nation is in so much trouble. Most center on Justice Thomas being incompetent because he doesn't ask questions of lawyers during oral argument. The presumption, then, is that asking questions shows some level of intelligence. Having listened to MANY justices ask questions during various oral arguments (not because I am a lawyer--I'm not--but just because I am very interested in constitutional law) it is clear to me that msot questions by justices aren't meant to elicit more information for the justice to help in deciding the case, but rather to direct the case narrative in such a way as to play intellectual chess with the other justices on the court.

It is also profoundly a lie to say that Thomas always votes with the other conservatives. That you do not know there are some significant cases in which Thomas and Scalia voted opposite one another explains your own ignorance. Your ignorance, however, is in no way evidence that Thomas isn't a thoughtful and independent justice who also happens to be a constitutional originalist.

I don't really care if people think Anita Hill is right, or Thomas is right. I have my own conclusions. There are simply too many instances in the hearings where Ms. Hill was proven to have lied, or to have misremembered events, to put the weight of credibility in her favor. But this doesn't matter in any event. Thomas either has sound legal arguments to make or he doesn't. I think his arguments are constitutionally solid. If you think otherwise then please explain how he is wrong, but don't denigrate the man's jurisprudence simply because you want to instead believe a woman who was proved to have lied. Proved, by the way, by a man the left came to adore--Arlen Specter. Orrin Hatch did great work at exposing the left's effort to wrongly destroy Thomas as well, but it was Specter more than any other senator who revealed Ms. Hill and her main corroborating witness, the IDIOT judge from southern California, to be liars at worst, nefarious fools at best.

DB Akron,

What a ridiculous comment. Another, rational, way of interpreting this is -- he really has little interest in pulling fact or data from the courtroom and prefers rather to rely on preexisting understanding and unilateral interpretation. Yet another mindless contribution from the far right. Maybe they should all just sit there silent like DB Akron seems to suggest... LOL.

Last time I checked participation requires, well... participation.

:)

That's funny, I heard he really liked oral...

Rich, good points.

The real argument over opinion begin after the oral arguments. The Justice's then write their opinions which circulate. They go through revisions multiple times until a final vote is taken and then the strongest majority and minority opinion are usually adopted.

As I said in the previous post, Justice Thomas written opinions are the most frequently adopted. That is because his written opinions are most often the most sound.

Rich,

Sorry I couldn't click on your #1.24 post more than once. It was spot on. One might hope that many would echo your post, but one would be disappointed. Reasoned, reasonable and informed opinion is scarce in this neighborhood...

Apparently, there is great merit in the old saying keep your eyes and ears open, and your big mouth shut!

Maybe it's time for those who believe this kind of thing to be of merit, to exercise it??? LOL!!

I would have loved to hear that he had been gone for 7 years. I am so sick of him.

What if all the justices "didn't like oral argument"?

Funny how all the liberal trash jump on this non story while praising the corpse of the court Ginsberg

Tell you what, he has been a painful spectacle to his "people", a sort of uncle Tom I might add.

Even to us white folks, it's a little embarrasing seeing him dis his own people on issues that literally brought him up and made him who he is....

To pretend those issues dont exist has made him a peculiar character on the halls of justice, when I think of him, clown comes to mind....

So am I to understand our highest Court has become a laughing stock as our Executive branch has become? Why didn't the court recorder request a halt to the tesitmony so he /she could record the testimony accurately and any questions from the bench accurately?

Justice Soto-Mayer should not be speaking "tongue in cheek" at her perch from the Supreme Court.

Thank God I won't live to see My Country be left in the hands of those who will destroy her! I pity our children who will never understand how GREAT this Country was!

What a lump.

He is unworthy of the position.

Stop the lies

Thomas written opinions before 2011 were 450.

Once source says 10% are fully authored by Thomas. The only person with more is the Chief Justice who usually writes the Majority opinion.

Clarence Thomas' wife was hired by the Bush transition team before the Florida votes had been counted. Thomas was the deciding vote. A vote to not count the votes of electors in Florida. And the economy came crashing down due to the appointment of G,W.Bush.

Ed

That is folklore and quite humorous. "was the deciding vote" is a really cheap political trick and makes one vote look more important than it is. Thomas meerly forwarded the case to the Chief Justice who said, Florida, you are violating equal protection, which is realy what Gore was trying to do, without looking like it.

If Thomas were appointed by Clinton he would be a hero like Sotomeyer, Ginsberg and Kaegan.

Thomas wanted to stop counting the electors? Where do you people come up with this crap? First of all, the Florida law was to get the count complete so that the electors could be counted in the Electoral College. The USSC had nothing to do with "electors" other than agreeing that Florida had an interest in having its electors counted with the rest from every other jurisdiction in the USA so that a president could be chosen.

Secondly, the Gore campaign wanted to recount ONLY those counties which were democrat-rich. And in counting only those counties a different standard for what was a vote was being employed in each jurisdiction. In no way can either of these facts comport with the Constitution. It's EMBARRASSING to me that other Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, would prefer to cheat--and yes, it would have been cheating had your ideas prevailed--to win a political contest. You should be ashamed of yourselves but this requires something, or somethings, you lack, like conscience, reason, fidelity to the law, and so on.

To think that people like you then were openly willing to defile the Constitution by cheating yet who now argue that conservatives have nothing to constitutionally fear from you today, is just idiocy. You are exactly why we should have a smaller, more limited government. You are exactly why we need to be able to keep and bear arms. You are exactly why our government continues to run amok. You are, in a phrase, the most serious existential threat to this nation. Al Qaeda pales in comparison to the damage your ideas are capable of causing.

Hi SRMcMahon,

Nothing would happen. Some decisions are already rendered without the "benefit" of oral argument (think, at a minimum, of cases not accepted by the court). When briefs are submitted Justices can, if they want, question in writing the individual or group which submitted the brief. The odds this would be necessary often are slim--most briefs are written by highly qualified constitutional experts (at least they claim they are) and present the best case for the advocate while simultaneously attempting to defeat the argument of their opponent. Very few cases reach the court before a massive trial record is established in any event. And since the USSC is in almost every case NOT in the business of determining facts, but is instead in the business of deciding if a previous decision is, or is not, constitutional, then the idea briefs are even needed is tenuous at best.

Garbo speaks?

Is this a non-story, or what?

ED-2874315 Ignoring author

Clarence Thomas' wife was hired by the Bush transition team before the Florida votes had been counted. Thomas was the deciding vote. A vote to not count the votes of electors in Florida. And the economy came crashing down due to the appointment of G,W.Bush.

Great post...and an honest answer....he and Bush should be in jail.....

Our economy did crash. I don't think anyone could deny that fact. But to say that Bush caused it is only slightly less stupid than to make the claim that Thomas, or the USSC itself, appointed Mr. Bush president. There is a basic canon of the law which says that the law cannot be used for unjust ends. I will grant that what is just might be in the eye of the beholder, but it's a stretch I don't think even you leftists can make to claim that counting only some parts of a state, and counting those parts differently from one another, is a just way to run an election. If you can make that argument I'd love to hear it. But if you can't, and in my opinion I really hope you don't even try if for no other reason than I would like to delude myself (what little delusion possibly remains) that American leftists still treat the Constitution with reverence and fidelity, then could we stop with the insane posts that you then pat one another on the back over?

.

Rich - w/a bunch of numbers: Did you really just say that Bush DIDN'T cause our economy to fail???

Hi Deborah,

Yes, that is right. Bush DID NOT cause the economy to crash. There are many ways to debate this and you are welcome to throw at me whatever you want. I would center my argument on two facts that I don't think are disputable. First, the government is not the locus of GDP success. Government isn't without influence (regulations, taxes, foreign policy, etc), but an economy grows from the private sector, not from the public sector. What government tends to do is constrict growth through its various activities. Since the left claims that Bush freed the private sector then it's an impossible conclusion to then argue that less government (which we didn't actually have) caused failure.

Second, the most damaging effects on the economy were caused by the real estate meltdown, which then affected banking and insurance as well. But Mr. Bush wasn't responsible for the real estate meltdown. He, in fact, had gone to Congress looking for reforms to various institutions and regulations so that the real estate bubble might be contained, but leftists there (Frank, Pelosi, Waters, Scott, Reid, Boxer, even Obama himself) countered that nothing was wrong. Bush was even implied to be a racist because he wanted to prevent the government's regulatory systems, as well as Fannie and Freddie, from continuing to inflate the RE bubble.

Since most of the GDP growth in the previous decade had been fueld by two bubbles--first was the tech bubble but it was tiny by comparison--the collapse of the bigger RE bubble meant that home equity could no longer be used like an ATM machine for consumer goods and services. We had, in every possible sense of the phrase, been living beyond our means. Unfortunately since the RE bubble burst we have continued to live beyond our means but this time by massive deficit spending by the government. We could have more "real" GDP growth if we focused on fundamentals, but as we are governed in the modern era by people who are as economically illiterate as possible the odds we will do anything positive are slight. If anything we might make a mistake which has positive consequences.

Or did you not really want to debate this?

Rich, (1.24) your comment on Justice Thomas was excellent. It is a sad comment that you were collapsed, it truly shows how intolerant the left is.

Thomas does not question listen or participate in the process ..he relies on his subordinates to get the information provided by the GOP and put that information in an opinion form .. his whole career has been the work of affirmative action ..though his masters disapprove of and want to rid this country of affirmative action

Deborah.. you cant debate people like Rich they listen to only one source and are not openminded enough to change they forget the congress and senate were controlled by the GOP for 12 years and all regulations and deregulation was done by the GOP .. to blame any one but the GOP for the near collapse of our country is idiotic ..G W Bush wasnt smart enough to manage the country so technically Rich is right .. G W Bush was an empty suit all he did was sign the legislation handed to him

To symbolically replace Thurgood Marshall, Bush I appointed Thomas. Thomas' role was to reverse decades of civil rights progress. Thomas has played his role well. At the opposite end of the legal spectrum is Justice Thurgood Marshall. Marshall fought for equality and fair opportunities. Marshall won 14 of 19 cases that he argued before the Supreme Court. Marshall was the lead and successful attorney in Brown versus The Topeka Board of Education in 1955. He was a true champion for the voiceless.

Marshall left us an positive outstanding and enduring legacy.

...Thomas is an embarrassment to Justice Marshall.

Hi timewonttell,

You are wrong. You can easily debate me. But instead you choose to use vitriol and invective rather than reason and facts. So I will ask you a very direct question and see if you have anything more than what I just read. How did Bush, or the GOP, cause the real estate market bubble? See, without a bubble (in economics a bubble is an irrational economic outcome normally caused by inaccurate information or, as in our case, government subsidy) then there would have been no false GDP growth, and no future popping of the bubble.

Hey 25Walker,

I dn't agree with your conclusions, but I also don't see Marshall as some terrible justice. But I don't really get your idea that Marshall left a lasting positive legacy because he was a champion for the voiceless. As a lawyer/advocate, fine, but as a judge? Shouldn't his only goal have been the fair application of the constitution to each individual case which came before him? So, if it wasn't, then what makes him so great?

DB Akron:

As I said in the previous post, Justice Thomas written opinions are the most frequently adopted. That is because his written opinions are most often the most sound.

100% correct according to the records.

Rich-281385:

So, if it wasn't, then what makes him so great?

He was not so great SCJ. He was an American Negro and a Liberal, that made him a hero to the other liberals.

25Walker:

...Thomas is an embarrassment to Justice Marshall.

How stupid of a statement. Justice Marshall failed to follow the stated laws, but Justice Thomas adheres to them.

Deborah Cox:

Rich - w/a bunch of numbers: Did you really just say that Bush DIDN'T cause our economy to fail???

Yes, that is correct - G W Bush did NOT cause harm to the the USA's economy. Only a poorly educated and hack would state so.

Got any proof that he did? Not your viewpoint, but some real hard facts.

Rich-281385, I have only one problem with your post #1.46, I know what an ATM is, but what is an ATM machine? Other than that you are again spot on with your postings here.

I can't believe that there are still people who were not living in caves at the time, who DON'T know GW and his ilk caused the financial meltdown. Even his own party started to distance itself from him.

Rich-281385

Hey 25Walker,

I dn't agree with your conclusions, but I also don't see Marshall as some terrible justice.

Rich,

You have a right to disagree. However, when it comes to application of the U.S. Constitution to promote equality, the right wing is always wrong.

But I don't really get your idea that Marshall left a lasting positive legacy

Marshall played a significant role in helping to desegregate America.

If you prefer inequality and racial segregation, your moral compass is skewed.

Your values are not based on true Democracy.

because he was a champion for the voiceless.

Before Brown versus The Topeka Board of Education, little children of color and based on race, were forced to "attend" dilapidated and ill-equipped schools. In society, this placed children of color at a significant and life-long disadvantage.

As a lawyer/advocate, fine, but as a judge?

Marshall was a highly articulate, brilliant legal scholar.

Shouldn't his only goal have been the fair application of the constitution to each individual case

Marshall's goal was fair application of the U.S. Constitution. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments granting freedom to African Americans and other discriminated persons, were not being applied to protect our citizens. Through his legal arguments and Supreme Court decisions, concerning these 3 amendments, Marshall helped correct grave legal errors.

then what makes him so great?

...all of the above, and that he was the first African-American judge on the U.S. Supreme Court.

It takes some real brain power to sit up on the bench, in his robes, while pretending to be wallpaper.

He is probably one of the least intelligent Supreme Court justices of our time. Sad sad sad

Homer Adams

25Walker:

...Thomas is an embarrassment to Justice Marshall.

How stupid of a statement. Justice Marshall failed to follow the stated laws, but Justice Thomas adheres to them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homer,

It is stupid to want an economically and socially divided country.

Marshall's legal decisions gave full application of Constitutional amendments that honored the equal rights of individuals. Thomas does not adhere to these laws. He embraces the narrow-minded and hateful ideology of the right wing.

You are wrong. You can easily debate me. But instead you choose to use vitriol and invective rather than reason and facts. So I will ask you a very direct question and see if you have anything more than what I just read. How did Bush, or the GOP, cause the real estate market bubble? See, without a bubble (in economics a bubble is an irrational economic outcome normally caused by inaccurate information or, as in our case, government subsidy) then there would have been no false GDP growth, and no future popping of the bubble

Rich: When the economy collapses at the end of eight years of a presidents 2nd term no one single person can be held more responsible than that president. Had Bush not been elected we wouldn't have the deficit or debt we have today and would be in a far better position to deal with any crisis. Bush ran on a platform of his tax cut to refund projected surpluses while Gore ran on paying off our debt. Bush took no action to raise revenue after starting 2 wars he simply paid them on the Americard the same as his drug plan. I doubt many even on the far right believe Gore would have started the war in Iraq and maybe not in Afghanistan, there were other options. Had we had little or no debt we could have reinvigorated our economy by rebuilding our own infrastructure instead of rebuilding Iraq's and Afghanistan's.

Our economy did crash. I don't think anyone could deny that fact. But to say that Bush caused it is only slightly less stupid than to make the claim that Thomas, or the USSC itself, appointed Mr. Bush president.

Yes, Rick, it would be stupid to suggest that Bush had anything to do with allowing the real estate bubble, coupled with rampant financial speculation, to grow unchecked during the first 6 years of his presidency. After all, he only controlled both houses of congress for most of that time and always controlled house.

How can anybody claim he had anything to do with what happened on his watch?

What other things happened between 2001 and 2008 for which we should not blame Bush?

1. A reckless and mismanaged invasion of Iraq.
2. Neglect of the war in Afghanistan.
3. Putting FEMA under the control of an incompetent, political crony.
4. Replacing a nearly balanced budget with increasingly large deficits.

But none of that is the fault of George W. Bush's fault, which begs the question: what the !@#$@! did he do during his eight years in office, besides declare "Mission Accomplished" in spring of 2003, I mean?

BTW: In a later post, you state:

What government tends to do is constrict growth through its various activities. Since the left claims that Bush freed the private sector then it's an impossible conclusion to then argue that less government (which we didn't actually have) caused failure.

...which is an unsubstantiated myth, that Government activity only restricts economic growth. To state that is to ignore the impact of the U.S. Highway System, the space program and even the Erie Canal, all public investment projects which directly or indirectly spurred economic growth. Your blanket implication that all regulation is bad, is beyond ridiculous.

Proper regulation of human social and economic activity is a facilitator not a block to greater efficiency. To use traffic laws as an analogy, if all regulations surrounding driving were prepealed, it would create chaos and gridlock, not greater speed of transportation. People would be empowered to choose which side of the highway to use, regardless of the predominant flow of traffic. Traffic lights would become meaningless decorations, while motorists jammed and bluffed their way through each intersection.

You can have unnecessary, or badly designed regulations. The 55 MPH national speed limit, in effect from the 1970s through the early 1990s, is a good example. But it would be difficult to argue that the either the Real Estate or Finance industries were over-regulated in the years between 2001 and 2007, when real estate brokers, builders, banks and home buyers were busy in a merry-go-round of speculation.

Like drivers on an unregulated highway, they did as they pleased, and the financial pile-up of 2008 was the direct result.

But none of that is the fault of George W. Bush and the GOP, is it Rick?

What is the motto of the GOP these days:

"Authority Without Accountability", or "What, me worry?"

Hi 25Walker,

It's an odd thing to see an American (I'm presuming you are an American) argue that our Constitution was designed to promote equality. It wasn't. The founders SPECIFICALLY rejected the idea of government coordinated equality. What it does support is equal treatment under the law. If Marshall as a judge ever supported that ideal, then I support him. But supporting Marshall because he advocated for equality is a very bad plan. France's founding was, in part, based on equality. Ours never was. And so to just move in that direction via a written sleight of hand is a scary thing.

Hi Larry,

Since you are completely ignorant of the Bush presidency--how odd given it is so recent--I will help you out. Bush went to Congress more than once beginning, I think, in 2003, to seek changes to the laws which governed Fannie and Freddie. See, Bush saw the economic threat posed by both GSEs engaging in susidizing behavior. I don't like ANY GSEs, but had Fannie or Freddie merely followed their initial charter which was to facilitate home puchases by qualified borrowers then we'd have likely not had the bubble, and its disastrous consequences. The problem was that over time some in Congress--they were virtually all Democrats (because F and F donated generously to Democrats running for office)--thought that F and F should do more than just facilitate. It should openly subsidize the marketplace.

So if you were a private lender a new way developed to both sell risky paper AND then get out from under that risk by selling the paper to F and F. And while neither GSE, or together, bought up all the paper in the market, they bought up so much that the market was manipulated and, ultimately, destabilized. Private lenders, in other words, would have been wildly stupid to not cash in on the bubble that government laws caused.

Hey dman,

Although I never said Bush was responsible for nothing I find it hilarious that was what you seemed to have read. In fact, when I mentioned that government tends (TENDS is the exact word I wrote) to constrict GDP growth through its own actions, your reply was that I had written that government ONLY restricts economic activity.on't think that, and didn't write that. Which either makes you disingenuous, or incompetent.

You speak about proper regulation, but we don't have proper regulation. The left itself makes this claim over and over and over again. So we, I mean you and people like you, think that the government (which we all elect) think that it has some special wisdom that we, I mean you and people like you, lack. But the banking crash is a PERFECT example of how your thinking is completely wrong. Had originating lenders been forced to either hold their own paper, or to find a free market participant to sell that paper to, then loans would have never been made in the volume they were to people who could not afford to pay them back. The market would not have been artificially motivated. The bubble would not have occurred. And we'd not be sitting here today arguing how Bush is responsible for it.

Since Fannie and Freddie were buying up the lion's share of this risky paper in order to keep an artificially inflated market going up the risk to originating lenders was nil so long as they weren't the last to sell a loan before F and F went upside down. What is so hilarious about your ideas, to square this circle, is that you would entrust the government to do what you manifestly claim to be unable to do, and yet you are the one doing the hiring of the government. How in the world do you think your level of ignorance of markets can somehow produce "proper" regulation created by those you hire to represent your interests?

And to think that before your post I thought a chance still existed for this nation to survive its current crop of voters. My bad.

While I am a left-leaning, generally Democratic voter, I have to give the award (if one existed and if I somehow controlled to whom it was awarded) for Best Poster of the Thread to Rich. I don't agree with everything he says, but his posts are the best thought-out, best crafted, and most compelling. It is too bad that people on both sides can't give reasoned, thought-out responses. Most of Rich's fact-driven arguments are met with venomous, knee-jerk replies. Come on, Dems - somebody step up the game!

Rich-281385

Hi 25Walker,

It's an odd thing to see an American (I'm presuming you are an American) argue that our Constitution was designed to promote equality. It wasn't. The founders SPECIFICALLY rejected the idea of government coordinated equality. What it does support is equal treatment under the law. If Marshall as a judge ever supported that ideal, then I support him. But supporting Marshall because he advocated for equality is a very bad plan. France's founding was, in part, based on equality. Ours never was.

Rich,

Erroneously, you have dissected the entire U.S. Constitution. A person does not have to be an American to understand this document. However, to answer your question...I am as American as apple pie and hot dogs. The U.S. Constitution was created to "form a more perfect union" and to separate the church from the state. Its laws establish basic freedoms such as the right to free speech, life and liberty. However, you are failing to consider that the document was approved in 1788. You are failing to consider that several of the of the "founding fathers" such as Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. As this country moved forward in time, and it became unacceptable that many of our citizens were denied legitimate rights, it gleamed that the "Supreme law of the land" had to be "amended."

Thus, we have the amendments of: emancipation, voting rights, the prohibition of payment of a tax to vote and equal protection of the law. Because the original framers of the constitution did not consider the equality of persons of colors and women to be important is not a reason for us to throw ourselves back into the past, and "re-adopt" inequities.

a written sleight of hand is a scary thing

What is scary is that you seem to be advocating returning America to dark areas of its past.

Thomas has said that studying the law "was as clear as concrete to me"

...apparently, not much has changed

Although I never said Bush was responsible for nothing I find it hilarious that was what you seemed to have read.

Rick I did not say that you did, I merely pointed out other examples of his feckless leadership during these years.

In fact, when I mentioned that government tends (TENDS is the exact word I wrote) to constrict GDP growth through its own actions, your reply was that I had written that government ONLY restricts economic activity.on't think that, and didn't write that.

Context is important Rick. Your entire statement read...

Government isn't without influence (regulations, taxes, foreign policy, etc), but an economy grows from the private sector, not from the public sector. What government tends to do is constrict growth through its various activities. Since the left claims that Bush freed the private sector then it's an impossible conclusion to then argue that less government (which we didn't actually have) caused failure.

You only mention the supposed negative impact of government. Then you couple your statement about supposed, government tendencies with the blanket statement that Bush freeing our private sector of regulation was as an undoubted good. The clear implication is that any removal of regulations can only be good.

I admit, that is worth a good laugh.

I dispute both parts of your statements, that Governments chief economic function is to impede economic growth, and that the real estate and financial institutions were sufficiently regulated between 2001 and 2007.

To address some of your other points regarding the evil "leftists" in Congress:

But Mr. Bush wasn't responsible for the real estate meltdown. He, in fact, had gone to Congress looking for reforms to various institutions and regulations so that the real estate bubble might be contained, but leftists there (Frank, Pelosi, Waters, Scott, Reid, Boxer, even Obama himself) countered that nothing was wrong.

You ignore these facts:

• Bush's party held the house until January of 2007.
• ..and also held the Senate from 2003 through January 2007.
• That during those years, when the real estate and financial bubbles were building, Republicans, not Democrats chaired key committees regarding finance and housing, not your "leftist" bugbears, such as Barney Frank.

Bush may have asked for reforms. But talk is cheap. With both houses of Congress practically in his pocket, he failed to enact any reforms. Instead, he managed to lead us to a useless war in Iraq.

He was the top dog during those years. He had the authority. He had the power. He did nothing. That makes him to blame. As Harry Truman said,

"The buck stops here."

Ridiculous story.

Yeah.. I can't believe that people out there actually track such minutia.

But such worthy comments <ksnort>.

Clarence Thomas' wife was hired by the Bush transition team before the Florida votes had been counted. Thomas was the deciding vote. A vote to not count the votes of electors in Florida. And the economy came crashing down due to the appointment of G,W.Bush.

Thomas is a Monsanto henchman. He's a disgrace to the court and the country and about as crooked a judge as they come.

Justice Thomas is a great American!!!

Ed, you are so ignorant. You think we cannot remember something that happened 12 years ago?

Point 1. Al Gore got the Supreme Court involved, not George W. Bush

Point 2. Nine months later the votes were recounted by independent panels, including members of the liberal media, and lo and behold, George W actually picked up a dozen or so votes. If the Supreme Court had not intervened, the result would have been the same, only after a delay of a couple of months.

Point 3. Your buddy Bill Clinton deregulated the investment banks and your buddy Barney Frank ignored calls by Republicans to reign in Fannie and Freddie from making crazy loans to poor people.

That's what caused the 2008 meltdown.

Facts are Stubborn Things.

I wonder if Rove's lips moved when he spoke

gary, It is refreshing to read honest facts every once in a while....It is very tiresome to just see the phony leftist made up crap time after time....there is so much leftist propaganda...based on nothing but attitude.

@Gary 420

Nice try. How's the teabags hanging? We won't get into your bogus 2000 nonsense but let's elaborate on your meltdown half-truths...

A repugnican congress passed a bill with most of the deregulation gifts added on as a poison pill. Further, the 'pugs had enough votes to override a veto and Clinton and the pugs knew it. He later expressed his regret at not vetoing the pug gifts to the banks. Furthermore, when Bushco couldn't figure out how to snap out of a mild recession in 2001, they threw money at it which your pugs were glad to spend. Remember the "jobless recovery"? Bushco's solution to the recession was to keep the interest rate at damn near zero for years and years. This led to their strategy of growing the economy through the financial sector. The problem being that borrowed money must be repaid eventaully which requires jobs that they never helped create. The dems and Clinton had a little blame in the meltdown but most of it was your red prostitutes from the repugnican party. I think you still have a little of that red dye on your face, boy. No, your douchebags are nose deep in this cess pool. Nice try though,bagger.

Gary, and your buddy George W. Bush did nothing to reverse these grievous acts you mention (I have not yet examined their validity), even with a congressional majority. I guess both parties are to blame - shocker...

Rich, Hi 25Walker,

It's an odd thing to see an American (I'm presuming you are an American) argue that our Constitution was designed to promote equality. It wasn't. The founders SPECIFICALLY rejected the idea of government coordinated equality. What it does support is equal treatment under the law. If Marshall as a judge ever supported that ideal, then I support him. But supporting Marshall because he advocated for equality is a very bad plan. France's founding was, in part, based on equality. Ours never was.

Rich,

Erroneously, you have dissected the entire U.S. Constitution. A person does not have to be an American to understand this document. However, to answer your question...I am as American as apple pie and hot dogs. The U.S. Constitution was created to "form a more perfect union" and to separate the church from the state. Its laws establish basic freedoms such as the right to free speech, life and liberty. However, you are failing to consider that the document was approved in 1788. You are failing to consider that several of the of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. As this country moved forward in time, and it became unacceptable that many of our citizens were denied legitimate rights, it gleamed that the "Supreme law of the land" had to be "amended."

Thus, we have the amendments of: emancipation, voting rights, the prohibition of payment of a tax to vote and equal protection of the law. Because the original framers of the constitution did not consider the equality of persons of colors and women to be important is not a reason for us to throw ourselves back into the past, and "re-adopt" inequities.

a written sleight of hand is a scary thing

What is scary is that you seem to be advocating returning America to dark areas of its past.

Hi 25 Walker,

I don't fail to take notice of any of the things you say I have. You entirely missed the point. The constitution wasn't designed to provide equality, and to this day it doesn't provide equality. It was designed to create equality before the law. The fact that it was amended to alter how we dealth with various people/groups doesn't invalidate this idea. Just the contrary. It shows that when something is wrong we have the right and the ability to amed the constitution to deal with wrongs, real or perceived. When it was written is irrelevant to whether it is still valid. However, if you think it is NOT valid, then change it, just like you rightly show it has been changed in the past when previous generations thought something in it was no longer valid. But don't, please, just ignore it in the hope you might get your way.

Despotic rule is decidedly anti-constitutional. Favoring a kind of despotism is your mistake just as much as misunderstanding the entire purpose of the constitution itself. Odd too, since you are arguing that only some parts of the constitution should be followed...the parts you like. Why argue that any of it must be followed if your other point--that it's old and no longer applies, or that the founders were imperfect people--is true?

Rich,

You have failed to reflect on the fact that in its inception in 1788, that the U.S. Constitution was not perfect. In various ways it was discriminatory. Do you really believe that we should bounce ourselves back to the past and consider African Americans to be considered 3/5 of a person: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3? By attempting to split hairs, you are trying to demand that 300 million American citizens stick to its "original intent." This is the right wing's way of attempting to again openly segregate this country by gender, race and class. Using the original standards of the document, in a slanted manner, mainly Caucasian males benefited from the "law of the land."

You stated:

"It was designed to create equality before the law"

How can a person who is consider to be only 3/5 of a human being have "equality before the law?"

Your statements that we stand on the original premise of the scroll, would throw this country back by more than 200 years. The constitution was amended to extend laws to disenfranchised persons. This is a fact. When the document was ratified is relevant. If not for the passing of time, it would still be acceptable to deny voting rights to large segments of our population. It is important and valid that subsequent changes were made to this document. Such amendments imbued legal rights to many "left out" persons.

You stated that I should change [parts that I do not like.]

I will not suggest that you change the amendments that made America more inclusive.

Despotic rule is decidedly anti-constitutional

Despotism is the right-wing's goal. You are coddling a buried past that should never be resurrected - total inequality.

The aspects of the constitution that you embrace were not Democratic and would favor only "a few."

What you should be arguing for is that America moves forward, and not swaddle ourselves in a regrettable past.

Hi 25Walker,

Everything you just wrote is flat out wrong. No one suggests we should return to counting slaves as 3/5 a person. An amendment was agreed to by the states, and so the 3/5 clause doesn't even exist. The point you have thoroughly missed is that the historical imperfections in the constituion you see have been (or could be if they still exist) perfected in the same way. So why simply pick and choose those parts of the constitution you like, demand they be followed, and then argue that the parts you dislike should simply be ignored rather than amended? That IS despotic, which makes your claim that conservatism seeks to be despotic false, unless you are now claiming to be conservative.

Where this all came about, this debate I mean, is that you credit Justice Marshall with being a great person because of his advocacy work on behalf of, largely, black Americans. Your mistake is in lionizing JUSTICE Marshall, rather than LAWYER Marshall. Judges should never side with one group over another in order to seek out some measure of "social justice". That idea would reduce the judiciary to a form of despotism as well.

No, I prefer we stick with Article 5 if we find parts of the Constitution we dislike. The founders, unlike you, were not so arrogant and narcississtic as to assume they knew what was best for everyone else. Instead, the produced the best they could at the time and gave every generation that followed the ability to add to or change the constitution as they saw fit. This isn't good enough for you. You prefer to simply reject parts of it you don't like and justify your actions by saying it's "old". But the old parts you like you want enforced because they are "good". To me, this makes you "bad", even if I might agree with your sentiments about what is wrong.

Rich,

A great aspect of the constitution is that it grants you - the "right" to be wrong. When you state that you are not saying that we return to human beings being counted as 3/5 of a person, you are being untruthful. Your entire "argument" is slanted toward cementing ourselves in "original intent." The 3/5 clause still is part of the constitution. However, thank God that by the 13th amendment it was nullified. Your attempt at "thought reversal" has thoroughly failed. Your "political stance" has remained the same - a serial collection of self-serving thinking that elevates the amendments that did not grant equality to all Americans. If you believe racial and gender inclusion is "despotism," profoundly you have proved that you have no understanding of Democracy!

conservatism seeks to be despotic false

Conservatism is despotic. This ilk believes that only the gilded and "the few" should vote and have human and legal rights. Justice Marshall advanced the cause of equality. He was a tremendously great man, and unlike Thomas, Marshall did not sit "mute" on the high court.

Judges should never side with one group

You have contracted yourself. Thomas and Scalia always vote one way - to deprive the majority of our citizens of economic, political and social benefits. Thomas and his wife have strong ties to hard right-wing groups.

The founders, unlike you, were not so arrogant and narcissistic

Do you consider the slave ownership of some of the founding fathers as...humility?

You are exposing your racism. When people of color have facts and opinions, they are called "arrogant."

The original 10 amendments were not sufficient for a Democracy. For this reason, over 17 additional amendments were enacted beyond the 200 years of ratification in 1788.

To me, this makes you "bad",

By God we will all be judged...the selfish, hateful and greedy such as yourself will have plenty to explain.

Have a new year of "open mindedness and mind medication."

Hi 25Walker,

I do not think it could be possible for you to have written an even more wrong post, but you have surprised me. People like me who believe in constitutional originalism dont' believe in slavery or the 3/5 clause or denying women suffrage. What it means is that unless and until we change the constitution in the legal ways provided, that the constitution means what it says (where clear and not interpretive [enumerated powers, for instance, versus how much to spend on those powers].

So, to your very pathetic argument I want slavery back, or to count blacks as 3/5 a person, my simple reply is that I don't, but that because Congress and the states changed the constitution using the ORIGINAL INTENT of Article 5 to do it, that it is perfectly lawful to have done so. I don't agree, for instance, that presidents should be limited to two terms as defined by the 22nd Amendment, but that amendment, none the less, was legally proposed and ratified. It IS the law of the land.

Where we sharply differ is when you think that parts of the constitution you don't like should simply be ignored, or redefined in a way you do like. The original intent of the constitution was to make it hard, but possible, to change it. You would prefer to engage in straight extra-constitutional democracy. I prefer to follow the law. This makes you despotic, and bad. Sorry that you are so offended, but you shouldn't be. You should loudly accept the claim. Most Americans side with you, and not me, on constitutional fidelity. Unfortunately for us all, you and me included, it won't be until the government goes too far that you will regret your public policy choices. And people like me will be of little help to you then.

Rich-281385

I do not think it could be possible for you to have written an even more wrong post, but you have surprised me. People like me who believe in constitutional originalism dont' believe in slavery or the 3/5 clause or denying women suffrage.

Again, you have proved yourself to be wrong. Your post and definition of the constitution is a toxic mix of exclusion and elitism - the opposite of Democracy. "Original Intent" accepted slavery and gender disenfranchisement. In serial contradictions, you stumble.

What it means is that unless and until we change the constitution in the legal ways provided,

Repeatedly, the document has appropriately been amended. It is regrettable that you reject the "equalizing" and glaringly legal amendments.

because Congress and the states changed the constitution

Agreed. Congress and the U.S. states modified the scroll. Thus, what is your complaint?

I don't agree, for instance, that presidents should be limited to two terms as defined by the 22nd Amendment

Woefully, you are confused in your right-wing political faction's goals. After FDR's 4 outstanding presidential terms, the Republicans spearheaded presidential term limitations. The Republicans could not tolerate FDR's success in lifting America out of a calamitous economic depression. Unconscionably, the party is still obstructing economic, political and social progress for this country.

The original intent of the constitution was to make it hard, but possible, to change it. You would prefer to engage in straight extra-constitutional democracy. I prefer to follow the law. This makes you despotic and bad

Thankfully, "original intent" did not prohibit modification of the highest laws of the land. It is pathetic that there are citizens such as yourself who believe that legal enfranchisement is a woeful state of affairs. There are many human beings who struggle to reach the shores of this land to obtain legal rights and a better life.

Most Americans side with you...

Your above statement is why President Obama is again in the White House. The best example of government overreach is the current campaign of the GOP to gerrymander congressional districts with the goal of "stealing" the presidential 2016 election.

"bad?"

Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr and Christ were considered bad.

...I think that I am with company.

...I think that I am with good company.

Rich, by rejecting the law, you are engaging in illegalities or treason.

Instead of hiding behind the veil of "original intent," why don't you just admit that you do not believe that all Americans should have equal rights. It is a tall man who lets the public know where he stands.

Uncle Tom speaks.

Ah yes, the old: it's better to keep one's mouth shut and let people think your stupid rather than speak and remove all doubt. The same can be said for many of the folks posting on the internet.

A cabbie calling someone a fool, priceless.

What does one have to do with the other?

Yes, SL Cabbie. Two words the world would never have heard - or had to endure - were it not for president George H. W. Bush's lame 1991 attempt to woo the black vote - while offending SCOTUS principles, every woman and all sense of decency: Justice Thomas.

• George H. W. Bush is a great American. We were fortunate to have him (not his son) as President. But nominating Justice Thomas is the very worst decision he ever made.

David-2319136, you must be one of the Bob Byrd Democrats.

Can't stand a Black man in power, huh?

I've heard his partner in crime, Justice Scalia, admit he'd never had his mind changed by oral arguments in any case, only reinforced, essentially admitting he'd formed his opinion before hearing the case.

Kind of ruins the idea of a trial, doesn't it?

Jan, it also destroys the concept of fairness.

Yeah but Scalia enjoys arguing so he's always out there in front anyway.

...no, it "ruins" the legal, ethical and moral "high-ground' upon which the "framers" attempted to establish and build upon our constitutional form of government- a democratic, republic, based upon a "rule of law" designed to serve and further the cause of "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", for a free 'body politic"; namely, "We the people..."

Well then let's never ever appoint any judges who have even a whiff of political activity. And let's never ask them how they'd vote on say, Roe v. Wade or the 2nd amendment stuff. And lets forbid their voting records left and right from being introduced to confirmation hearings. And make them produce their diplomas, their thesis's, their birth certificates, all their history.

I'm not a fan of either of these 2 but initial opinions can be formed when the written briefs are first reviewed, or even when the case is working it's way through the courts.

The supreme court rules on whether they will even review a lower court ruling or not which requires them to form an opinion long before the case is formally presented to them.

Well I glad all you left wing nuts are still around. How about those 2 women that this president is the worse 1 yet!!!!! Sure he will go down in history as such.

@cschilton,

maybe you should follow Justice Thomas and remain silent. Your post is totally meaningless. If you mean President Obama will go down in history as the worst one you have a very short memory. It will be extremely hard to beat bush out of that ranking.

And how does Ginsburg vote, duh you dumb sheeeet.

Nixon's in my memory. His lies, cheats and attempts to cover up his illegal Vietnam orders were heinous. Then again, Bush started a war in two countries on bad intelligence...they both suck really hard.

Re: Clarence Thomas, Ms Hill was not the sole witness subpoenaed that day to testify about Thomas's history of sexual harassment. She was the only woman unfortunate enough to testify. There were other women waiting to back up her testimony.

Although Ms Hill was hung out to dry, it's because of her that women have protection from sexual harassment in the workplace today. Thanks for your bravery, Ms Hill. You're a hero.

Hi Peridot,

Your post is wrong on most every level. Sexual harrassment law predates Ms. Hill's claims. There were no other witnesses who testified. Merely saying others were prepared, though they never did, is a very nasty way of trying to assassinate someone's reputation without every having to pony up the evidence. Ms. Hill wasn't hung out to dry. She was, instead, found to have lied, or at least misremembered, events and the timeline of them. What there were was plenty of women who worked for or with Mr. Thomas who said he had never done a single thing untoward in their presence, and that his door--this should've been a red flag to anyone who is fair--always remained open when he was in the office with only one other woman.

The only person who backed up Ms. Hill's testimony was Judge Susan Hoechner (spelling from memory, sorry if it's wrong), and her claims were reduced to either fabrications or collusions with Ms. Hill. At one point, upon being questioned about her recollections, her counsel asked for a recess to confer. When the hearing resumed two things occured. First, Ms. Hoechner now remembered (despite having been specifically asked earlier and answering she wasn't sure) with clarity that Ms. Hill said it was Mr. Thomas who said the infamous words. Second, Ms. Hoechner was unable to claim (as she had previously) that her timeline of events was clear in her mind and accurate.

What we know now, and knew within minutes of her testimony then, was that the timeline she claimed she was absolutely positive about, was totally fabricated IF the person Ms. Hill claimed harrassed her was Clarence Thomas. See, the phone calls Ms. Hoechner said she remembered as if they happened that day took place 9 months before Ms. Hill began working for Clarence Thomas, and 6 months before Ms. Hill had ever even met Clarence Thomas.

Sorry to be so precise, but your false claims can only be answered with accurate rebuttal information. All of which you can find for yourself in the Congressional Record.

After reading some of these comments, I wonder if people understand that the only purpose of the SC is to make sure the ruling that they are looking at is constitutional. It has nothing to do with fairness, guilt or innocence, JUST the constitution.

Hi jrl,

Thank you for the comment above. Your comment here is my concern as well. When the Republic was created we were warned by the founders that it would be hard to keep. The VAST majority of people in America have no idea what you are talking about, but, worse, they have no desire to know what you are talking about. How much longer can the republic survive when the majority has no comprehension or appreciation of its foundations and institutions?

We are living on borrowed time I think.

The problem is the SC has become politicized.

jrl... Good post.

A little surprised his joke wan't about pubic hairs on his soda can.

If you think Thomas is a joke just wait until Obama appoints federal judges and Supreme Court judges for life in the next 4 years...you will be scared and not recognize this country ever again.

OOh CoCo-1551796! The boogeyman is coming huh! Yeah cause the FOX/Linbaugh scare machine told you so?

I agree - what exactly does it say about a justice who hasn't participated for 7 years in an important part of the process?

I knew it wouldn't be long, before you OOh CoCo-1551796 would find someway to drag President Obama into this. Give it a rest anybody with any sense knows the Rep. Congress and Bush, are the reason the USA is in the condition it's in today. Also you are kidding yourself if you think the Republicans care about you just because you are white, baby, unless you are wealthy they are not for you white or not, they just need your stupid vote. Go sit down somewhere-PLEASE!!!!

Hi Simple Simon,

What makes you think oral arguments are a major part of the appellate process? Most people who watch the courts in the USA seem to agree that oral arguments make little difference to the outcome, if any at all.

Hey Georgette,

It's okay with me if you want to pin the blame of the USA on your political opponents. I don't think Democrats are blameless in any respect, but you can pretend the GOP is entirely to blame all you want. Still, and I think I'm going far out an intellectual limb here in asking you this question, could you please describe how Bush 43 AND/OR the GOP Congress before, or now, are responsible for the condition the USA finds itself in? I am guessing you mean economically more than anything, but if not I'm still interested in your reply.

Of course Justice Thomas is against affirmative action. It taints the accomplishments of anyone who has benefited from it. Your post is proof thereof.

P.S., You also show your ignorance of SCOTUS oral arguments.

Funny how if they are conservative their tokens and when their liberals they are barrier breakers. Gate keeper, only cowards play the race card.

There are no "tokens" in the republican party. Tokens are dead weight, and most African Americans and Hispanics in the republican party are more conservative than the leadership. This is why they move up so quickly. Conservative Republicans want someone who believes in Conservative principles, not the lip-service of the moderates and moderate leadership.

GateKeeper must also think that Bill Cosby is a token African American as well (oh my gosh - he wants you to put down the boom box, and pick up a book. Oh, so aweful!). Anyone who adheres to the principal of personal responsibility instead of going along with the Nannie State and the attitude that their race is "entitled" to things simply because of the atrocities of what happened 150 years ago is somehow an Uncle Tom. Ridiculous!!!

The difference between black liberals and black conservatives on the subject of Affirmative Action is that the liberal accepts that without policies in place to end discrimination and left to their own devices, even federal agencies would have continued on its path of exclusion. Liberals admit racism exist. Black conservatives walk the path to success via these same protections then once they get high enough up the ladder, they kick it down and deny it was ever there.

Sort of how degreed individuals thumb their noses at people on subsistence or unemployment benefits, then their own segment takes a nose dive and they themselves need financial assistance and quietly take back roads to the food line never admitting or acknowledging they too are using the fed for food.

Its the Crab Mentality. Put white crabs in a bucket and you will need a lid on it. If one makes it out he reaches back to pull others out as well. Put black crabs in that same bucket and you will never need a lid, if one does look like he is climbing, others will drag him back down. Should one succeed on the backs of others, once on top, he will kick the rest of them back as they climb ensuring he is the only one free.

Kevin...You seem to have nothing but attitude...and made up answers about how everyone must feel about everything....admit that these opinions are just your made up propaganda...I think the dif between liberals and conservatives is the same regardless of race. A liberal is totally dissatisfied with our country and wants to make "fundamental change" without regard to the success of our country and without regard to the damage these fundamental changes would make. Conservatives are sold that we have the best system available and if we continue on a commonsense approach that things will continue to improve and sustain. conservatism is not an evil racist program....and yet libralism seems to lead to an anti american hate success program that is overly impressed with socialism and loss of freedom and opportunity. When we lose opportunity, all races pay that price.

So is obama an uncle tom too?

msone11 is another coward playing the race card.

msone11, how is he an Uncle Tom? Have you ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin? It's funny that if one is Black and a conservative it is acceptable to call him racial slurs and it is accepted, but if a liberal it is totally unacceptable. Why is there so much hatred against Thomas? Exactly what has he done as a judge to cause such disdain and comtempt? Do you folks doing all the name calling and being so ugly even know why you dislike him besides him being a Black conservative?

The very quota system that got Clarence, a woman, and another non-white "other" ethnic minority on the high court is the very same ladder he climbed and seeks to dismantle now that he has used it. Clarence is the worst kind of being. He bites the very hand that fed him. Most liberals know the government teat is in their mouth.

Republicans in office want to convince their constituents they are doing the job for free and with no benefits once they leave office. Most supporters of the GOP actually believe their senators and congresspersons don't make a federal salary or take trips or vacations on the public tax dollar. They think only democratic electives are paid by our taxes. All of the GOP are rich and would never accept money or abuse authority for personal gain.

Anyone want to include Uncle Thomas' flagrant conflicts of interest and those of his wife? Can we tainted? You'd have to be Ccalia to be more tainted...

Shhhhhh!

Thurgood Marshall was an agenda appointment. So was Thomas. Are you saying Marshall was good, bright and intelligent because his decisions agreed with the perceptions of some lame poster on the vine? And Thomas is dumb, slow and ignorant because he decisions conflicted with the perceptions of some lame poster on the vine?

Another coward playing the race card.

Gatekeeper <~~~> Justice Thomas received his education on earned scholerships which he was awarded because of his record of HIGH GRADES. Affirmatve action had nothng to do with it.

Do you do those fold-up paper thingies?

That, plus they have been censoring many comments and removing them. The thought police of MSN are working tonight!!

Really? One collapsed comment. What are you talking about? None removed. That in of itself is NEWS on this board.

Bill--I'm delighted you made the connection! In the years I've been on the 'Vine, no one has ever asked about my screen name!

What you are referring to is the Japanese craft of Origami, which is paper folding.

My name, Kirigami, means paper folding and cutting. (Think very elaborate paper snowflakes!) These can be everything from very simple to incredibly ornate. They're fun if you don't have anything more important to do! The complex ones can be a bit tedious, but it all depends on what you like.

I could go on and on, but I won't! (I can hear the "thank yous" now!) If you want more information, go to that fountain of much knowledge, Google.

Sounds a lot like the Clintons eh.

No truer statement.

HOW much are we paying him ??

@wryobserver: Far more than he is worth.

the left is filled with race baiting cowards.

The left hates to be reminded of a career sexual harasser of his female coworkers appointed to the highest court of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with the colour of his skin and everything to do with his lack of character.

"the left is filled with race baiting cowards."

• Conservatives have a real knack. It seems every single time they attempt to describe liberals, they end up describing themselves.

Lois spoke the truth, Tom.

Yes, we all were hoping Justice Thomas had earned his salary at last. Nevertheless, he has merely uttered an unrecorded joke which will be unremembered by posterity.

At whom is your rebuke directed, Watching?

Is that not amazing a supreme count justice getting paid for doing nothing but sitting on his behind.

This guy is a JOKE!

As of 2011, United States Supreme Court justices make $213,900 per year while the chief justice of the supreme court makes $223,500. Although these might sound like high-paying positions, Supreme Court justices make far less than other similarly situated lawyers with the same amount of experience.

Read more: What Is the Salary of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8066963_salary-supreme-court-justice.html#ixzz2I04ZsMTT

Doesn't sound like a lot to me. But then how come the republican controled house doesn't give them a cut? They want to cut everything else.

He didn't ask any questions in court. Doesn't mean he isn't engaged in the process. He may well participte in the discussions among the justices and contribute to the opinions (majority or minority).

Linda, you are most welcome to move to another country. I've considered moving to another country as well....and decided against it. It ain't perfect, but it is the best one I can find...

The Supreme Court justices do have the added benefit of getting wined and dined at the Carlton Ritz by "sponsors"-just like congressional hacks. They have immense power and the sponsors know it. Look at the decision that allows corporations to have a voice in our elections. SC justices should have to wear the logos of the companys they are invested in on their black robes. That would clarify a lot of things.....

And if you had any honor, you would not say such dumb things.....I dont think that you are qualified for having an opinion...But, of course, you will, and you will state whatever enters your mind to the world.

If Thomas had honour, he would not have sexually harassed women. Anita Hill was not the sole witness called to testify about his sexual harassment issues. It's unfortunate that she was the only woman who testified against Thomas. She was sacrificed for political reasons. Her reputation was trashed. All she did was tell the truth and she was vilified.

Anita Hill is a hero. Because of her, women are now protected against sexual harassment at work. Thank you, Ms Hill. Your sacrifice gave us something we desperately needed.

Peridot...Yea, she was a victim....Then why did she keep following him from job to job and asking for jobs with him? Why did all the other women in the office testify that nothing she said was the truth? Dont let any facts get in your way.