Was Clarence Thomas unqualified to be nominated to the Supreme Court?

[dalej42]

George H.W. Bush could have nominated Bozo the Clown to the Supreme Court in 1991 and gotten him confirmed. Bush was coming off his post Gulf War I victory and enjoying high approval ratings.

Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas was less qualified than Bozo the Clown to be nominated to the court. I still believed he lied about the Anita Hill incident and was chosen only because of his youth and color.

[Captain Amazing]

Clarence Thomas had a law degree from Yale, was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri from 1974-77, was John Danforth's Legislative Assistant from 1979-81, was Assistant Secretary of Education from 1981-82, chairman of the EEOC from 1982-1990, and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit from 1990-1991.

Larry Harmon, who was the most famous Bozo the Clown, had a bachelor's degree in Theater from USC, and never worked for a law firm or served in a judicial or administrative post in the governemnt.

So, on paper, at least, Clarence Thomas seems more qualified for the seat than Bozo the Clown.

[dalej42]

Bozo the Clown did a good job as a clown and made people laugh.

Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill at the Dept. of Education and the EEOC. He also sexually harassed other women. The American Bar Association was split as to him being qualified.

Thomas lied on the stand. He knew damn well he'd vote against Roe any time he could. He also lied about sexually harassing women.


Actually, Long Dong Silver would have been a better nominee.


Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) is Thomas' Wikipedia entry.

[DrFidelius]

Well then, just what are the qualifications needed to be nominated for a seat on the US Supreme Court? Note, I am not asking what should be the requirements.

[Vinyl Turnip]

But you don't deny that Bush could've nominated Mr. the Clown and gotten him confirmed...

[jtgain]

George H.W. Bush could have nominated Bozo the Clown to the Supreme Court in 1991 and gotten him confirmed. Bush was coming off his post Gulf War I victory and enjoying high approval ratings.

Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas was less qualified than Bozo the Clown to be nominated to the court. I still believed he lied about the Anita Hill incident and was chosen only because of his youth and color.

What, in your estimation, would make a nominee "qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court? Should he/she have to be a judge for a certain number of years or what?

[BarnOwl]

Clarence played the race card, complaining that the sexual harassment allegations against him generated a circus atmosphere and he was getting a high tech lynching. I guess that might have helped him win the Supreme Court post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

Thomas denied all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual impropriety by Hill and the others. Of the committee's investigation of the accusations, Thomas said: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Well then, just what are the qualifications needed to be nominated for a seat on the US Supreme Court? Note, I am not asking what should be the requirements.

There are none. None at all.

[ArizonaTeach]

Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill at the Dept. of Education and the EEOC. He also sexually harassed other women. The American Bar Association was split as to him being qualified.

Thomas lied on the stand. He knew damn well he'd vote against Roe any time he could. He also lied about sexually harassing women.Not only is he qualified for the Supreme Court, based on that, he could be President!

[Bryan Ekers]

Thomas was not unqualified. I don't think he was the most qualified possible choice, but two-thirds of the U.S. government approved him and that's all that matters.

[Captain Amazing]

Actually, Long Dong Silver would have been a better nominee.

As far as I know, Mr. Silver didn't have any legal education either. (And I don't think the ABA would have found either Bozo or Long Dong Silver qualified, although this is just supposition on my part, because neither of their names were submitted.)

And while I acknowledge Bozo's ability to make people laugh, I don't think that's really the skill set you need to become a Supreme Court Justice. Equally, sexually harrassing women, while it's certainly not appropriate behavior, doesn't really touch on your qualifications to serve on the court either.

[dalej42]

An excellent example of a highly qualified Supreme Court Justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Ginsberg)

From the Wikipedia article:

She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark from 1963 to 1972. In 1970, she co-founded the Women's Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the United States to focus exclusively on women's rights. From 1972 until 1980, she taught at Columbia, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school case book on sex discrimination.

In 1977 she became a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. As the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, she argued several cases in front of the Supreme Court and attained a reputation as a skilled oral advocate.

Ginsburg was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Carter in 1980.

[Captain Amazing]

Yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is probably more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than Clarence Thomas. But you're moving the goalposts here.

[Magiver]

George H.W. Bush could have nominated Bozo the Clown to the Supreme Court in 1991 and gotten him confirmed. Bush was coming off his post Gulf War I victory and enjoying high approval ratings.

Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas was less qualified than Bozo the Clown to be nominated to the court. I still believed he lied about the Anita Hill incident and was chosen only because of his youth and color. Wow. Just wow. I've seen political rants on this board, I've seen childish rants on this board. There isn't even a category for your post.

[Giles]

I still believed he lied about the Anita Hill incident and was chosen only because of his youth and color.
His age and skin colour were certainly factors, but I think President Bush I still needed to nominate someone with legal qualifications and experience. If Bozo the Clown had been a young black Republican, he would still not have been on the list, because of certain gaps in his resume.

[gonzomax]

he was probably vetted by Monica Goodling.

[Onomatopoeia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

<snip> Thomas said: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree." Oh, shut the Hell up, Thomas. When, in your entire career, have you not been the white man's Boy? When have you ever thought for yourself? What different ideas have you EVER had, you loser? You haven't just kowtowed to the old order, you've become the old order's boot licker, you freak. Perhaps you and that self-hating rhetoritician Alan Keyes should both go and get your skin bleached, as it's obvious to me that you feel the worst thing in the world is being black, and you're going to spend the rest of your life making the lives of black people as difficult as you possibly can. Just die already, you animal.

[Blalron]

There are none. None at all.

That's right. Even a developmentally disabled infant could theoretically be appointed to the Court. But even though there are no legally mandated "qualifications", I think it's generally accepted that a certain intellectual depth and willingness to do hard work is needed to perform the job.

The fact that he very seldom speaks during oral arguments, and writes the least number of opinions out of all the justices seems to indicate a certain laziness on his part. Don't get me wrong, if I were appointed to a cushy lifetime job where it's virtually impossible to get fired I'd be coasting through it too. My votes would be diametrically opposite, but I'd have the same attitude.

Of course, George Bush Sr was full of shit when he said that Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified person" to be on the Supreme Court. He was nominated because he was young and thus would likely be on the bench for decades, because he was extremely conservative, and because he was black (liberals aren't the only ones who can play the race card) and thus it would be harder for senators to vote against him.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Wow. Just wow. I've seen political rants on this board, I've seen childish rants on this board. There isn't even a category for your post.
Really? It isn't even the most childish political rant I've seen this week.

[Spoke]

While I strongly disagree with Thomas's legal philosophy, I also strongly disagree with the notion (of recent vintage) that a Supreme Court nominee must be a law professor or long-serving judge. I think the perspective of someone who has lived a life outside those narrow worlds is greatly beneficial to the court.

Many of our most prominent justices never served a day on the bench before being appointed to the Supreme Court: Earl Warren, Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, Byron White, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, and Hugo Black, to name just a few.

[Elendil's Heir]

...Of course, George Bush Sr was full of shit when he said that Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified person" to be on the Supreme Court. He was nominated because he was young and thus would likely be on the bench for decades, because he was extremely conservative, and because he was black (liberals aren't the only ones who can play the race card) and thus it would be harder for senators to vote against him.

All true. Don't forget he was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first and at that point only black ever to serve on the Supreme Court. It was simply laughable for GHWB to say Thomas's color was not a factor, and that he was the best qualified person for the post. A good question to ask in these situations: but for the nominee's color [or other extraneous political consideration], would he be a serious contender for the post? I don't see how any reasonable, objective observer could say "yes" in Thomas's case.

Thomas was qualified, barely, but there would have been many, many others who were much more so. It must be said that the pool of black conservatives who would pass muster with a Bush White House and with conservative senators was, and is, shallow.

[Shodan]

Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill at the Dept. of Education and the EEOC. He also sexually harassed other women. None of this is true.
Wow. Just wow. I've seen political rants on this board, I've seen childish rants on this board. There isn't even a category for your post.Sure there is - it's called "tolerance" and "diversity". See also Onomatopoeia's bigoted nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

[Captain Amazing]

The fact that he very seldom speaks during oral arguments, and writes the least number of opinions out of all the justices seems to indicate a certain laziness on his part.

I don't know that that's neccearily true. He's said he doesn't speak during oral arguments because he considers oral arguments not helpful in his making up his mind...he believes that the legal arguments are generally laid out more completely and coherantly in the legal briefs.

And if he writes the smallest number of opinions, it's probably because he tends to be the most conservative of the justices, and his legal opinions don't generally get consensus built around them.

[magellan01]

Oh, shut the Hell up, Thomas. When, in your entire career, have you not been the white man's Boy? When have you ever thought for yourself? What different ideas have you EVER had, you loser? You haven't just kowtowed to the old order, you've become the old order's boot licker, you freak. Perhaps you and that self-hating rhetoritician Alan Keyes should both go and get your skin bleached, as it's obvious to me that you feel the worst thing in the world is being black, and you're going to spend the rest of your life making the lives of black people as difficult as you possibly can. Just die already, you animal.

Justice Thomas thanks you for making his point. :rolleyes:

[Cat Fight]

it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.

I thought sexually harassing female co-workers was the old order.

[Digital Stimulus]

And if he writes the smallest number of opinions, it's probably because he tends to be the most conservative of the justices, and his legal opinions don't generally get consensus built around them.Don't dissents count as opinions? If your point holds, then the Justice with the 2nd smallest number of opinions should be the "most liberal" Justice. Is that the case (I honestly have no idea)?

[Steve MB]

Oh, shut the Hell up, Thomas. When, in your entire career, have you not been the white man's Boy? When have you ever thought for yourself? What different ideas have you EVER had, you loser? You haven't just kowtowed to the old order, you've become the old order's boot licker, you freak. Perhaps you and that self-hating rhetoritician Alan Keyes should both go and get your skin bleached, as it's obvious to me that you feel the worst thing in the world is being black, and you're going to spend the rest of your life making the lives of black people as difficult as you possibly can. Just die already, you animal.
Dude, try decaf.

[Huerta88]

Of course Thomas was appointed mainly because of his race.

Of course he was not the most qualified for the job.

Of course bad things can happen when Republicans play the token game, working from a shallow pool (I remember when J.C. Watts was hailed as the new face of the GOP -- he was not terribly ready for prime time). Look at Harriet Miers, whose main qualification seems to have been GWB's sentimental appreciation of her resemblance to Millie the White House pooch.

Of course I suspect that CT said roughly what he was alleged to have said to Anita Hill, and I conclude, BFD. Any delicate snowflake who can't endure a couple of comments about a pubic hair and a porno movie probably isn't much of a workplace asset anyhow.

Does any of that make him not marginally qualified? I don't think so.

Quantity of opinions doesn't mean much. Sometimes a lot of opinions just means liking the sound of your own voice. The clerks mostly write or tee them up anyhow, so I'd imagine Thomas could churn out quite a few, if he wanted to, even if he were stupid and lazy.

By the way, I found the encomium to RBG pretty funny. Her resume reveals more about political activism than about any real legal skill, and political activism on a one-issue basis at that. An agitator does not necessarily a jurist make.

[Max Torque]

The fact that he very seldom speaks during oral arguments, and writes the least number of opinions out of all the justices seems to indicate a certain laziness on his part.
I don't know that that's necessarily true. He's said he doesn't speak during oral arguments because he considers oral arguments not helpful in his making up his mind...he believes that the legal arguments are generally laid out more completely and coherently in the legal briefs.
Perhaps. But, his silence is so unusual, and so total, that it's become a national joke. The Wall Street Journal started a "When-Will-Justice-Thomas-Ask-a-Question Watch" in their law blog. February 22, 2008 was the anniversary of Thomas's last question, marking a record two years of silence, and I haven't found any reports of him speaking during oral arguments since that date. It's downright bizarre, and it gives the impression that he's doing little more than "taking up space".

Incidentally, Thomas wasn't confirmed by a two-thirds vote. The Senate vote was 52-48, the narrowest margin in over a century.

[Frostillicus]

Clarence Thomas is nothing more than Antonin Scalia's bitch.

[Cat Fight]

Of course I suspect that CT said roughly what he was alleged to have said to Anita Hill, and I conclude, BFD. Any delicate snowflake who can't endure a couple of comments about a pubic hair and a porno movie probably isn't much of a workplace asset anyhow.


And someone who can't resist sexually harassing at least three employees is? It wasn't just a pubic hair, it wasn't just Anita Hill. What an embarrassment.

[Huerta88]

And someone who can't resist sexually harassing at least three employees is? It wasn't just a pubic hair, it wasn't just Anita Hill. What an embarrassment.
Given that they were working at the EEOC, which is pretty much a do-nothing, unnecessary agency, I suspect the caliber of the talent attracted there was fairly marginal across the board and that the highest standards of professionalism were hardly the norm.

[BrainGlutton]

He was, at any rate, better qualified than Harriet Miers.

[Voyager]

He was, at any rate, better qualified than Harriet Miers.
He might well have been the best qualified black far-right Republican who graduated from a decent law school. At least he didn't get his degree from Liberty, give him that.

[villa]

Clarence Thomas is nothing more than Antonin Scalia's bitch.

Except Breyer and Ginsburg end up on the same side of decisions more often than Scalia and Thomas.

I think his legal philosophy is generally wrong. But he is a very smart man, and he is one of the few on the Court to get commercial speech right, IMHO.

[Renob]

Clarence Thomas is nothing more than Antonin Scalia's bitch.
Someone who has actually studied (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009590) the papers of Harry Blackmun and other Supreme Court papers has concluded that this common misperception of Thomas is completely false:

Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

[pravnik]

Even if I don't agree with him his opinions are well written, so he's at least competent in that regard. Or at least his law clerks are. :)

[mks57]

Don't try to confuse the lefties with the facts, it just makes them irritable.

[ralph124c]

Face it, most are fairly mediocre. None of them are/were especially intelligent (with the exception of Oliver W. Holmes, and Louis Brandeis), and the way the court operates is not conducive to great legal decisions. The fact is the SJC likes to duck really important decisions, like "was the Vietnam war legally started", or, do states have the power to tax incomes twice, or: do local probate judges violate the Constitution (when they give exclusive rights of property to divorced women).
I don't think Clarence Thomas is especially distinguished, but he is probably as good as most of them.

[villa]

None of them are/were especially intelligent (with the exception of Oliver W. Holmes, and Louis Brandeis)

Really? Much as I hate his philosophy, Fat Tony is a remarkably intelligent man. From people who have worked with him, I hear the same about Roberts. Ginsburg too is by any standard a very intelligent woman.

[ArizonaTeach]

Don't try to confuse the lefties with the facts, it just makes them irritable.Well, the truth does have a conservative bias, dontchaknow.

[Shodan]

Plus most of this stuff about qualifications is a smokescreen, anyway. Bork is probably the most powerful legal mind nominated in the last forty years, and the Dems voted him down.

"Qualified" for Democrats means exactly one thing - "can be relied on not to question Roe v. Wade". If Thomas were perceived as pro-abortion, the Dems would be falling all over each other praising him to the skies - and Anita Hill would not have made up the lies about him. Nor would Nina Totenberg and Sen. Paul Simon connived at forcing her to testify falsely.

Regards,
Shodan

[mlees]

* breaks out the popcorn *

[E. Thorp]

Nor would Nina Totenberg and Sen. Paul Simon connived at forcing her to testify falsely.I've never heard this part of the saga before. Cite, please? Thanks.

[John Mace]

Really? Much as I hate his philosophy, Fat Tony is a remarkably intelligent man. From people who have worked with him, I hear the same about Roberts. Ginsburg too is by any standard a very intelligent woman.
Let's not forget Rehnquist: Valedictorian of his class at Stanford Law School. O'Conner was in the same class, and was reportedly ranked 3rd, although wikipedia notes that Stanford doesn't officially rank its Law School students.

[Lobohan]

Plus most of this stuff about qualifications is a smokescreen, anyway. Bork is probably the most powerful legal mind nominated in the last forty years, and the Dems voted him down.

"Qualified" for Democrats means exactly one thing - "can be relied on not to question Roe v. Wade". If Thomas were perceived as pro-abortion, the Dems would be falling all over each other praising him to the skies - and Anita Hill would not have made up the lies about him. Nor would Nina Totenberg and Sen. Paul Simon connived at forcing her to testify falsely.

Regards,
Shodan

What does qualified mean for republicans? Sucking the Jesus Dick with adequate intensity and furrowed brow? Do you think he would have been selected if he weren't strongly anti-choice?

How about we both keep to whether CT was actually qualified?

He was in my opinion. He's got the whole, ignorant conservative thing going on, but they guy is reasonably good at what he does. He wasn't the most qualified by a longshot, but he was coincidentally black. :rolleyes:

He was chosen because they thought he would blindly vote the conservative platform and not think for himself. So from Bush Sr's point of view he's ideal.

[villa]

Let's not forget Rehnquist: Valedictorian of his class at Stanford Law School. O'Conner was in the same class, and was reportedly ranked 3rd, although wikipedia notes that Stanford doesn't officially rank its Law School students.

I was surprised to hear that about him in law school. From reading his opinions, I always got the impression he was not the sharpest knife in the draw. Wonderful administrator though - a good choice for Chief (if we had to have a conservative in that post).

[Elendil's Heir]

Let's not forget Rehnquist: Valedictorian of his class at Stanford Law School. O'Conner was in the same class, and was reportedly ranked 3rd, although wikipedia notes that Stanford doesn't officially rank its Law School students.

Fun fact: He and O'Connor (note spelling) also dated while they were both at Stanford. See Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine for an excellent recent book on the Supreme Court: a very good mix of law, politics, history and gossip.

[Captain Amazing]

I've never heard this part of the saga before. Cite, please? Thanks.

Simon reopened the hearings after Nina Totenberg broke the story that Thomas had been sexually harrassing Hill.

[42fish]

Simon reopened the hearings after Nina Totenberg broke the story that Thomas had been sexually harrassing Hill.

Although how reopening the hearings constitutes "forcing her to testify falsely" as per Shodan is another question.

[Renob]

Fun fact: He and O'Connor (note spelling) also dated while they were both at Stanford. See Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine for an excellent recent book on the Supreme Court: a very good mix of law, politics, history and gossip.
For an even better book, read Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict (://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Conflict-Inside-Struggle-Control/dp/1594201013). I think she had access to a lot more documentation about the Court than did Toobin.

As far as Rehnquist goes, a year or so before he died I saw him eating lunch in a restaurant on Capitol Hill. He was smoking a cigarette (the establishment was non-smoking, but if you can't make an exception for William Rehnquist who can you make an exception for?) and drinking a Miller Lite. Good stuff.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Perhaps he doesn't ask any questions during oral arguments because his mind is already made up. I mean, give me an issue and I can tell you with 99% accuracy how he's going to vote on it before a single argument is made.

[Algher]

Perhaps he doesn't ask any questions during oral arguments because his mind is already made up. I mean, give me an issue and I can tell you with 99% accuracy how he's going to vote on it before a single argument is made.

I have often wondered if that is the case for all of the justices. Does the short little oral arguement really make a difference in their minds? I would think that they would already have all of the materials in front of them / their law clerks. They don't make an immediate decision, it comes much later. Is the oral arguement just a bit of pageantry for the masses?

[John Mace]

I have often wondered if that is the case for all of the justices. Does the short little oral arguement really make a difference in their minds? I would think that they would already have all of the materials in front of them / their law clerks. They don't make an immediate decision, it comes much later. Is the oral arguement just a bit of pageantry for the masses?
Could be. But it also might help them determine how narrowly they ultimately construe their ruling. It seems like a lot of the questions asked by the justices are framed as hypotheticals to flesh out what the implications would be for a given ruling.

[Elendil's Heir]

Different justices take different things away from oral arguments, if you believe their memoirs. For many it won't make any difference in their vote; for some it will provide a chance, by the questions they ask, to either build up or rebut a point that they love or hate. In a tiny, tiny minority of cases, a brilliantly-argued presentation will win over a vote or two, or a terribly-botched presentation will lose the same. But the lawyers never know into what category their own oral arguments will fall, so they work hard on them and try to do the best damned job they can.

FWIW, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rarely had any use for oral arguments, and often would write letters to friends while the lawyers blathered on and on.

[squeegee]

Don't dissents count as opinions?No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)

[Digital Stimulus]

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion)
Well, the problem there (unless I'm reading it incorrectly) is that on the right, there's a helpful box titled Legal opinions, subtitled Judicial opinions, under which are listed:

Majority opinion
Dissenting opinion
Plurality opinion
Concurring opinion
Memorandum opinion

Indicating that a dissent is indeed a judicial opinion. Not being an avid follower of "The Law", I'm certainly willing to defer to those with more expertise.

Can we get a ruling on this one?

[Dinsdale]

I'm not at all sure we could reach agreement as to the definition of "qualified."

CT certainly was qualified to advance a conservative agenda for decades to come.
But if you view it in terms of experience and demonstrated temperment for a very high promotion - well, maybe not so much.

One curious aspect of the nomination process is that the more of a record an individual has, the harder it will be to get him through the confirmation process. So you have folks like Posner who clearly has written and spoken too much on too many topics to ever be considered. (Tho he DOES have the arrogance for to job!) And you end up with little-known stealth nominees, claiming "By gosh, I've never even considered how I might have ruled on Roe v. Wade!"

A buddy of mine was a Supreme clerk some years ago. Said CT was HUGELY into powerlifting, and was a terror on the court - the b-ball court that is. Also said it was pretty obvious that in a city based on influence and power, short of the Pres, the Supremes were pretty much the biggest rockstars wherever they went. So yeah, rules such as no-smoking only apply to mere mortals such as us, not the Supremes.

[Elendil's Heir]

...Can we get a ruling on this one?

Yes, a dissent is an opinion. It's not "the opinion of the Court," but it's an opinion. So is a concurrence.

[squeegee]

Well, the problem there (unless I'm reading it incorrectly) is that on the right, there's a helpful box titled Legal opinions, subtitled Judicial opinions, under which are listed:

Majority opinion
Dissenting opinion
Plurality opinion
Concurring opinion
Memorandum opinion

Indicating that a dissent is indeed a judicial opinion. Not being an avid follower of "The Law", I'm certainly willing to defer to those with more expertise.Ah... I'd thought you meant a dissenting vote. If CT authored a dissenting opinion (i.e., a brief which detailed his thinking on why a dissent was the proper course), then that counts. If CT merely joined some other court members in a dissent, and the brief was authored by a different judge on the panel, then no, that doesn't count.

[Max Torque]

Well, the problem there (unless I'm reading it incorrectly) is that on the right, there's a helpful box titled Legal opinions, subtitled Judicial opinions, under which are listed:

Majority opinion
Dissenting opinion
Plurality opinion
Concurring opinion
Memorandum opinion

Indicating that a dissent is indeed a judicial opinion. Not being an avid follower of "The Law", I'm certainly willing to defer to those with more expertise.

Can we get a ruling on this one?
A dissent is an "opinion" inasmuch as it's a written statement of how that particular justice interprets the law. However, a dissent is not binding precedent. Dissenting opinions may be cited in future legal briefs and such for persuasive purposes, but they are not "law," and judges of lower courts are not obligated to comport with their reasoning.

[Digital Stimulus]

Ah... I'd thought you meant a dissenting vote.That's OK, but I did mean a written dissent. Now, since my comment has generated some comments, I'd like to get it straightened out (if possible). Again, I'm not well-versed in law, and am only operating on scant knowledge and guesswork.

At any rate, to put this in context, the original comments were:And if he writes the smallest number of opinions, it's probably because he tends to be the most conservative of the justices, and his legal opinions don't generally get consensus built around them.Don't dissents count as opinions? If your point holds, then the Justice with the 2nd smallest number of opinions should be the "most liberal" Justice.
Captain Amazing's argument is pretty clear, I think: Most conservative Justice leads to lack of consensus, which results in fewest written opinions. It seems natural to me that if that line of reasoning holds, the converse would hold also -- the most liberal Justice would have difficulty gaining consensus and would also have few written opinions.

I'd think that someone who follows the SC might be able to venture a guess as to whether that's the case or not. And even if it's not the case, of course there are multiple explanations for why; perhaps liberal views are more centrist and thus easier to build consenus around, or the most liberal Justice just happens to be more extroverted than other Justices, etc., etc. But I think it's a faulty argument.

Honestly, I don't know...since I'm not familiar with the range of the SC's decisions, much less who has written what opinions, I'm not really in a position to argue at this depth. However, if Captain Amazing's argument (that the small number of opinions is due to CT's conservatism) is faulty, then there is some other explanation for the dearth of CT opinions, one of which may simply be that, yes, CT is/was unqualified.

[Fiddle Peghead]

...and Anita Hill would not have made up the lies about him. Nor would Nina Totenberg and Sen. Paul Simon connived at forcing her to testify falsely.

Regards,
Shodan

Please, where is the evidence that Anita Hill made up lies about Thomas again?

[Huerta88]

Reasonable men could disagree as to the utility of concurring or dissenting opinions. Some may think they plant the seed for a future court to get right the point the dissenter/concurrer thinks they got wrong. And that's not crazy -- earlier non-majority opinions, even if not having any weight of authority, can provide a road map for a later court to apply a rationale that it considers persuasive.

Some may think that dissents/concurrences are just blather, as they don't affect the ultimate outcome, or that concurrences are just tangential detours into issues that weren't really squarely presented to the court. And that's not crazy. If CT falls into this camp, and often finds himself an outlier in the vote, that might explain partially the low number of opinions.

I'm reminded of Salvator Rosa's self-portrait, with the Latin inscription that translates: "Remain silent unless what you have to say is better than silence."

[Shodan]

Please, where is the evidence that Anita Hill made up lies about Thomas again?
Mostly here (http://www.biggerbooks.com/bk_detail.aspx?isbn=9780897334082).

Regards,
Shodan

[Cat Fight]

Please, where is the evidence that Anita Hill made up lies about Thomas again?

There's also the book The Real Anita Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill), although, considering the author's subsequent statements and follow-up book, it's got to be a bit difficult to read without a hefty serving of salt.

[An Arky]

Eh, I don't think he's going to be a first ballot hall-of-famer, but that's not all that often been the point. SCOTUS appointments are a perk for the President and generally reflect his ideology (personally, I think it's the place where the "Checks and Balances" aren't).

However, Bush I had just been burned by Souter. He wanted a conservative, and he wanted to avoid having another Bork and have his first choice get voted down by the Democratic-controlled congress, so he (or his people) came up with a brilliant idea...a black conservative with not much of a paper trail. They knew the Democrats wouldn't have the guts not to approve a black man.

So that's why Clarence Thomas, and not Bozo the Clown, is a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and there's bupkis anyone can do about it for the rest of his life. Them's the breaks.

And it doesn't look like any of the conservatives on the court are going anywhere for the next 8 years, so all progressives can do is tread water, unless somebody can get some Pelican Brief-type action going.

[Huerta88]

However, Bush I had just been burned by Souter.
This is why I can't really get why anyone's griping over CT's having turned out to be a fairly hard-core right winger. Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, all Republican appointees, "grew in office" to become something between fence-sitters and screaming lefties. I think at least three of those four were Catholics and could hypothetically have been counted on/feared to dismantle Roe. Didn't happen. By contrast Dem appointees (or non-Catholic/liberal/Jewish appointees) have not in recent memory strayed off the reservation or defied expectations. So to the unfortunate extent that the nomination game has become a "get one of our guys in who'll reliably enact our agenda," CT was merely proof that (up through that point) the GOP was batting a pretty anemic .200 in effectuating this goal, whereas the libs were putting up Hall of Fame numbers in that regard.

[Dinsdale]

This is why I can't really get why anyone's griping over CT's having turned out to be a fairly hard-core right winger. Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, all Republican appointees, "grew in office" to become something between fence-sitters and screaming lefties.

I think some of this might have to do with how you define "rightie" and "lefty" in a judge/justice.

I'm sure many many people will disagree with me, but I think it may take a more extreme and rigid personality and philosophy for a justice with a lifetime appointment to retain what are commonly considered "conservative" judicial views. In my non-expert opinion, much of what is denoted "judicial activism" reflects judicial concerns with the hardships that "strict construction" would impose upon many people - most frequently the historically less fortunate.

Is there any debate that, as fantastic as the Constitution is, it was drawn up by - in large part to favor the interests of - wealthy, white, male property owners. And I think a good argument can be made that in many respects moneyed interests have readier access to obatining favorable legislation, as well as enforcement of existing legislation.

So, stated imprecisely, I'd suggest that unless one is a zealot, being appointed to the Supremes has the effect of swaying justices more to the center/left than in the other direction.

[Huerta88]

So, stated imprecisely, I'd suggest that unless one is a zealot, being appointed to the Supremes has the effect of swaying justices more to the center/left than in the other direction.
Your take on it is one way of looking at it.

Another is that life tenure inculcates a hubris, a Philosopher King mentality, inducing judges to Solomonically parcel out (create?) rights -- to become benevolent despots, if you will. O'Connor's opinions in the two Michigan race-quota cases were self-indulgent exercises in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin baby splitting: this quota -- not acceptable. That other quota -- acceptable; but, like, maybe for only 25 years. I read an interview with Stevens defending the pro-sodomy opinion; the arrogance with which he defended imposing what were obviously nothing other than his personal, Washington-cocktail-circuit, liberal views, claiming all the while that it was the Constitution which compelled this result, was breathtaking.

A final factor behind the "growing in office" phenomenon: as mentioned, Justices find themselves the legal equivalent of rock stars, law dorks who are suddenly celebs. Most of the attention paid to them and their prononcements comes from the mainstream media and especially, the law professoriat, both of which bodies are skewed way to the left. In which direction does the human-nature impulse to be liked and showered with praise, then, impel them? Isn't it plausible that a weak-minded jurist (O'Connor) would take a tack that led to her drivel being pronounced as "incredibly nuanced" by the colossi of the law professor ranks, as opposed to being regarded as some swarthy reactionary troglodyte (as has been Scalia's fate)?

[Elendil's Heir]

...I'm reminded of Salvator Rosa's self-portrait, with the Latin inscription that translates: "Remain silent unless what you have to say is better than silence."

Or, as the saying goes, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

[Dinsdale]

Yeah, that is another way of looking at it.


Most of the attention paid to them and their prononcements comes from the mainstream media and especially, the law professoriat, both of which bodies are skewed way to the left.

So, it has been unquestionably established that the mainstream media (however that is defined) skews way to the left?

And I guess a liberal law professoriat - while the conservative lawyers are out whoring themselves for lucre - would be consistent with my gut feeling that at base beneath much of what passes for "conservatism" lies something grasping and lacking compassion.

[Huerta88]

So, it has been unquestionably established that the mainstream media (however that is defined) skews way to the left?

We've had this debate before. Those (me) who make that claim point to the stat that I guess it was 89% of surveyed journos who voted for Clinton. My other challenge, which I don't think was ever met, was to find an editorial board of the leading paper in a major metropolitan area that opposed Roe.

And I guess a liberal law professoriat - while the conservative lawyers are out whoring themselves for lucre - would be consistent with my gut feeling that at base beneath much of what passes for "conservatism" lies something grasping and lacking compassion.
Okay, this is GD, so it's fine that you're well down the road to tendentiousness with this. But I'm not sure it's well-founded. Conservative conservative lawyers are probably going to be found working for peanuts at right-wing foundations (Cato, Heritage, Institute for Justice, CIR) trying to undo forty years of what they view as activism. And if you surveyed lawyers in high-paid corporate or law-firm positions (or just looked at the federal electoral contribution records online), I daresay you would find many, many heavy Dem/liberal backers among those millionaires. Bill C. and Edwards (himself a grasping filthy tort lawyer and self-proclaimed progressive) certainly never had trouble attracting filthy lucre from lawyers.

By the way, you do realize that professors at the "elite" law schools who critique/influence the judiciary are hardly self-sacrificing humanitarians, right? They're generally pulling down comfortable six-figure salaries for eight months work, and are free to work, speak, etc. for profit on the side. I call that having your progressivism and eating it too. The real conservative thesis for why the professoriat skews liberal goes more like this: (1) academics are out of touch because they never have to actually make their jerk-off theories work in practice, or deal with the consequences thereof; (2) academics are often rewarded/praised precisely for "thinking out of the box" (which is often another way of saying, they are impelled to publish/lecture on theories that are deliberately counter-intuitive and go against centuries of common sense, precisely because there's no glory or novelty or attention to be had by the dog-bites-man law review article on how apes probably don't have constitutional rights); (3) academics are elitists who believe that "intellectuals" (themselves, and bien pensant judges) should have more influence than the dirty mob, and the "activist" judges have generally been known for overturning popularly-enacted laws, so that's good, especially when the received wisdom in politically-correct campus life is almost always liberal; and (4) academics are drawn from demographic groups that historically skew liberal.

[foolsguinea]

Bozo the Clown did a good job as a clown and made people laugh.Cite?

[ralph124c]

Really? Much as I hate his philosophy, Fat Tony is a remarkably intelligent man. From people who have worked with him, I hear the same about Roberts. Ginsburg too is by any standard a very intelligent woman.
Count me as unimpressed; anybody can write hundreds of lines of blather. How many SC justices would know which end of a hammer to use? These are people so disconnected from reality, that they think the world revolves around their decisions.
I doesn't.

[villa]

Count me as unimpressed; anybody can write hundreds of lines of blather. How many SC justices would know which end of a hammer to use? These are people so disconnected from reality, that they think the world revolves around their decisions.
I doesn't.

Wow - shifting the goalposts any? You said specifically:

None of them are/were especially intelligent

That's just wrong. Now you are claiming that you meant "None of them are/were especially handy around the house." Which is probably true, but fundamentally irrelevant to basic principles of constitutional law.