Well, the truth does have a conservative bias, dontchaknow.
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
- breaks out the popcorn *
I’ve never heard this part of the saga before. Cite, please? Thanks.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
For an even better book, read Jan Crawford Greenburg’s Supreme Conflict. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
[ul]
[li]Majority opinion[/li][li]Dissenting opinion[/li][li]Plurality opinion[/li][li]Concurring opinion[/li][li]Memorandum opinion[/li][/ul]
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?
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.
Yes, a dissent is an opinion. It’s not “the opinion of the Court,” but it’s an opinion. So is a concurrence.
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.