Alabama Democrat on Justice Thomas: "He's an Uncle Tom"

[ptwonline]

Still not sure what this has to do with anything. I know for most general people think that the oral arguments are the meat of the how the Court makes it decisions, however, the written arguments are far more valuable, and nobody has ever any point said the Justice Thomas is not well acquainted with the cases that are before the Court, so that fact that he does not speak a lot does not have any bearing on anything.

Speaking up at oral arguments indicates an actual interest in getting answers, or actually exploring and considering arguments. By not speaking up it leads people to assume that his mind is already made up, since if it wasn't made up you'd expect him to ask for clarifications or to explore scenarios.

[Aucald]

It is, for some bizarre reason, impossible for most people to say "I disagree with this specific person" or "this person's views are different from mine" without also qualifying your own viewpoint with an insult, slur, or demeaning addition.

[Adam Jensen]

He thinks the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide constitutionality of federal law.

How is this man a member of SCOTUS if he doesn't believe that SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to do what it was created to do?

What?

[Rukentuts]

How is this man a membor of SCOTUS if he doesn't believe that SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to do what it was created to do?

What?

He joined Scalia's opinion:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

This was about DOMA, which was legislated at the federal level. This is why legal experts' responses to this dissenting opinion can be summarized as: "What is this I don't even..."

[Masark]

Said no originalist ever

Yes, because "originalism" is a really great way to interpret constitutional law.

[Zoranon]

Yes, because "originalism" is a really great way to interpret constitutional law.

Beats living constitutionalism aka constitution says what I want it to say.

[Wyattbw09]

Let's get a nice summary of our pal Thomas.

He thinks anti-sodomy laws governing private sexual acts don't violate Due Process.
He thinks the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to decide constitutionality of federal law.
He thinks that a mental institution holding a cured (now sane) patient doesn't violate Due Process.
He thinks federal regulation of manufacturing and agriculture is unconstitutional.
He supports the execution of the mentally impaired.
He supports the execution of minors.
He supports the beating of incarcerated prisoners if it's not "serious".
He thinks the Constitution protects a person's right to religion but not another's to not be oppressed by the former's.
He's against affirmative action, despite himself benefiting heavily from it.
He thinks forcing a woman to give birth doesn't violate her right to Due Process.
He thinks that abortion isn't a guaranteed right and can be trampled by states, despite a SCOTUS ruling.
He thinks discrimination of homosexuals doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause.
And last but not least, he recently broke a 7 year silence on the bench to verbally attack an orator.

This man is a bloody idiot.

- - - Updated - - -

Said the actual ruling, if you could read it please that would be lovely.

I get that you don't like him. However, none of your cases cited fit anything outside of he judicial philosophy. Plus of course the title you give twists the actual dissents/opinions in the cases.

Almost all of these opinions fit within the scope of originalism. You seems to want a justice that picks and chooses based on your tastes rather then on some sort philosophy to which they must adhere themselves. I don't like or agree with many of Justice Thomas's opinions, but it does not mean I can't see that most of them are based on his expressed judicial philosophy.

By the way the New York Times article makes no sort of implication that he verbally attacked an orator not sure where you got that idea.

[Masark]

Beats living constitutionalism aka constitution says what I want it to say.

As opposed to Originalism aka Let's keep society mired in the 18th century until enough of the population has progressed to the point where they can bodily drag out of it.

[Korgoth]

Hahaha I love the leftists victim blaming. Never going to give up being hypocrites!

[Zoranon]

As opposed to Originalism aka Let's keep society mired in the 18th century until enough of the population has progressed to the point where they can bodily drag out of it.

Heh originalism is not that great either, but the living constitution doctrine is just retarded. If you dont like what the constitution says, change it by means of amendments, not by packing the court with your friends.

[Wyattbw09]

Yes, because "originalism" is a really great way to interpret constitutional law.

Fine, but simply because people don't like it as a way of interrupting the law does not make any less valid a way or interrupting the law.

[Rukentuts]

I get that you don't like him. However, none of your cases cited fit anything outside of he judicial philosophy. Plus of course the title you give twists the actual dissents/opinions in the cases.

Feel free to elaborate.

Almost all of these opinions fit within the scope of originalism. You seems to want a justice that picks and chooses based on your tastes rather then on some sort philosophy to which they must adhere themselves. I don't like or agree with many of Justice Thomas's opinions, but it does not mean I can't see that most of them are based on his expressed judicial philosophy.

Does originalism encompass Thomas' opinion that the Supreme Court cannot decide the constitutionality of federally enacted law? Or was that dumbassery?

In addition, the Constitution was always meant to be a living document. Originalism is only great if it's 1800, or if your mind is stuck in that period of time.

By the way the New York Times article makes no sort of implication that he verbally attacked an orator not sure where you got that idea.

He made an insinuation on a live microphone that she was legally unqualified.

[Wyattbw09]

How is this man a member of SCOTUS if he doesn't believe that SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to do what it was created to do?

What?

What exactly was the Court created to do?

[Adam Jensen]

Hahaha I love the leftists victim blaming. Never going to give up being hypocrites!

Right, because Conservatives never do the same damn thing right?

[Kaleredar]

Racism and Bigotry: Perfectly ok when we do it.
--The Progressive American Liberal

More like:

Alabama. Yep, we're still in the South.

[Adam Jensen]

What exactly was the Court created to do?

To decide whether the laws the legislature created are constitutional or not.

[Wyattbw09]

To decide whether the laws the legislature created are constitutional or not.

Where in the Constitution, or even legislatively do you find that?

[Rukentuts]

Where in the Constitution, or even legislatively do you find that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

[Kaleredar]

Where in the Constitution, or even legislatively do you find that?

A little reading material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

EDIT: damn. Beaten to it. But I have the quote:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[Healing Rain]

Irony. Democrats wanted to keep slavery legal and are still trying to enslave blacks by trying to brainwash blacks into thinking that Republicans want to take away their rights.