Beyond the anectodal evidence of the two dozen or so oral arguments attended by my friends and me over the last few years? I’m sure I could find a number of cites, but I’m working right now, so they’ll have to wait.
http://triciamjohnson.blogspot.com/2008/02/was-he-really-napping.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/22/a-dissenting-opinion-on-clarence-thomas/
A blog post and comments on blog post are your cites? These people have no credibility.
I could go start a blog that says Biden smokes crack. Or post a comment in a blog that W. Bush is is legally retarded.
So written statements by eyewitnesses are not evidence?
Notice that the people in these threads that are defending Thomas don’t claim that he stays awake. They argue that other justices also fall asleep or that falling asleep during oral arguments isn’t that big a deal.
You asked for cites. I gave them. If you want to continue to claim that Thomas stays awake during oral arguments, you’d better start providing some evidence of your own to back it up.
How do we know these people are eyewitnesses? Becasuse they said so (anonymously) on the internets?
I believe SCOTUS proceedings cannot be filmed or videotaped. You’ve stated that you won’t accept eyewitness statements because the eyewitnesses might be lying (although nobody has provided any evidence of this). So what exactly would you consider a reliable cite? Or is this a case where there is nothing that will convince you that you might be wrong?
How about something that has been vetted by a reputable news organization? The blog postings have no more credibility than a post on this board.
Would you cite to a post on this board for an academic paper?
Would you honestly cite to a blog to establish that Justice Thomas sleeps through oral arguments in a research paper? People can write anything in the comments section. If google it up, you can find blog comments that we found WMD’s in Iraq.
A good standard is: would this cite be acceptable is a law review article discussing Justice Thomas. You have presented nothing that comes close.
Sorry for the typos/missed words. I am posting on a cell phone.
Like I said, I’m saying so as well. I’ve seen it. My friends have seen it. It’s happened pretty nearly every time we’ve been to oral argument. (Say, 75 percent of the time or more.) Either he was asleep, or he was resting his eyes with his head tilted back for a long, long time.
You don’t want to believe me? Fine. Show me a cite saying that he doesn’t fall asleep.
If Fred McKissick of Murfreesboro, TN, or Susan Schwarzkopf, reporter in the Kansas City Star’s Washington bureau (both names made up out of thin air) states in propria persona, with their own identity made public, that they witnessed Justice Thomas doze off during oral arguments, I’d consider that reliable eyewitness testimony. If Liberal, Airman Doors USAF, or Captain Carrot, all of whom I’ve met IRL, state here that they’ve witnessed it, I’d consider that reliable eyewitness testimony. That someone using Salada T. Baggs as a nick says on some random board that she witnessed it, no, that’s not reliable. (Not that I have any clue whether he does or not – just suggesting a criterion for reliability.)
There are a couple of further points to be made here. First is that, in the words of Artemus Ward, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.” That’s not cynical in my estimation; it merely means that judges who have experience in the political system are aware of just how far they can go in having their rulings accepted as law by the public and enforced by the political branches, and they’ll be careful not to cross that line. Which means a certain subtle shift in what was possible under a Bush Presidency with a Republican or narrowly Democratic Congress vs. what will be possible under an Obama Presidency and a significantly Democratic Congress.
Second is that in that rarefied atmosphere, the sorts of issues that loom large to political pundits become less significant, and questions of authority and Constitutional construction become much more important than they are to the general public. Scalia, for example, follows his textualist star to a point that, despite being viewed as an arch-conservative, he is a steadfast civil libertarian where the text spells out civil rights. Kennedy’s philosophy always surprises those who think in Left-Right terms.
I see Ginsberg stepping down early in '09, with Souter seeking a good time to retire after her replacement is confirmed. I see Stevens hanging in there so long as his health permits – I believe he’d love to go down in history as a second Oliver Wendell Holmes. I think Kennedy will continue to be the focal point for close decision making, and he’ll relish the role and the consequent high place in shaping the Roberts Court’s legacy. Don’t look for him to resign soon.
Show me a cite that the President doesn’t meet with aliens at Area 51. There is not much coverage for things that don’t happen. So far the only evidence you have provided is your own anonymous accusation. (There have also been some other anonymous internets posts linked to. But there is a lot more stuff on Area 51 out there.)
You said you could provide a number of cites. So far that number is zero. Time to put up.
People have given you cites. You refuse to accept them. You’ve offered nothing. It’s your credibility that is disappearing here.
Cites to anonymous internets posts. I am new here. Are annonymous internets posts considered valid cites here? If so, it seems like a bad standard. A person can find anonymous internets posts supporting anything–see the internets for Area 51 information.
It funny the media would cover Justice Ginsburg falling asleep but cover a fellow justice falling asleep:
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=at6rujt10U7s&refer=us
How about a reputable for Thomas, like above ones for Ginsburg.
Corrections:
It would be funny that the media would cover Justice Ginsburg falling asleep but not cover a fellow justice falling asleep.
How about a reputable cite for Thomas, like the above ones for Ginsburg.
Note that both your sources about Ginsburg nodding off actually refer to one reporter’s account about one incident. My guess would be that Thomas’ nodding off doesn’t make it into the press very frequently for two reasons. First, the media tends to cover man bites dog stories more than dog bites man stories. And most people in the legal community are not surprised to hear stories about Thomas sleeping because he is known not to care about oral argument. Second, it is pretty hard to judge whether a justice is sleeping or just closing his eyes. Since it is mostly a gotcha story or a random detail anyway, there’s no sense reporting it only to find out you’re wrong.
Nevertheless, here’s two citations from published sources.
Jamie Bologna, The Supremes, Tufts Daily, March 27, 2007.
Joel Bleifuss, Sleeping Thomas, In These Times, May 10, 2004.
Could these folks be lying too? Sure. But why the vast conspiracy? What does Gadarene have to gain by lying to you on a message board? Thomas admits he doesn’t care about oral argument. It’s not as if it is a further insult that he therefore doesn’t pay attention to it.
Not me, Poly? 