|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Clarence Thomas, You Have the Right to Remain SilentPosted on Feb 22, 2011
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hasn’t asked a question during oral arguments in five years. Why the silent treatment? To paraphrase Thomas, why beat up on the visiting lawyers when you already have your mind made up? Thomas is not required to ask questions, but it does strike some of the people who keep track of these things as a bit weird. According to a professor of political science quoted by ABC News: “No single justice has gone even one full term without asking a question in the last 40 years.”
Advertisement Previous item: Gov. Walker Threatens Wis. Workers With Pink Slips Next item: Rahm Emanuel, the Next Mayor of Chicago New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
Truthdigger of the Week: Medea Benjamin
 . '/' . substr('9780375708732',-6,3) . '/' . '9780375708732' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By MarthaA, February 25, 2011 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment
samosamo, February 24 at 9:25 pm,
Nor I.
It is sad to see black people get into power, then forget totally the
Report thispurpose for which Martin Luther King, Jr. ended up giving his life.
By samosamo, February 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
****************
Report thisSeems his way of accepting that he is the ‘court negro’ as he
himself admits by being silent in schools he attended on some
pretext he learns from listening to answers to other’s questions.
That is hard to believe as he would have to had formed some
ideas from ‘discussion content’ to ask a question that was not
asked by others. Certainly a trait that I don’t want in anybody
serving in any part of what is left of this country’s
government/republic.
By Rodney, February 24, 2011 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course Uncle Thomas don’t have anything to say.
Report thisBefore the arguments begin he says Massar Scalia how
we’s gonna vote.
By zonth_zonth, February 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment
Bunch of stiffs out their deciding what is good for the peons. Justice Thomas aiding to rule corporations having a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates. Now playing mute.
Does he know what a human being is? He values capitalizing on his own self inflicted victimhood and capitalizing on corporate political influence. These chinless stiffs have too much power.
Report thisBy berniem, February 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
Thomas is a sad case. Here we have an individual dis- respected throughout his formative years and forced to be a “victim” of a society that felt so sorry for his racial misfortune that it forced him to seek to better himself as a gesture of atonement for his past mistreatment at it’s hands. But, lo, he succombed to Stockholm Syndrome and by doing so demonstrated that he could become a useful tool if placed in the “right” hands! And what better place to take advantage of his potential benefit for the “cause” than to invoke the “Peter Principle” and elevate him to the SCOTUS while also placing him under the watchful eye of Lady Virginia MacBeth! Thus we find poor Clarence relegated to being the mute Renfield to Scalia’s Dracula!
Report thisBy Gilbert of Woodhaven, February 23, 2011 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What a waste. Mr. Thomas is wasting our tax money. His
Report thisarrogance not to share his wisdom by zipping his mouth
defy the logic of King Solomon. Then why not appoint a
mute in the highest court!!
By TDoff, February 23, 2011 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment
Speaking of Clarence Thomas and arguments, his very existence is a very good argument for bringing back the ‘N’ word. And since he chooses to remain mute, the adjective ‘DUMB’ would apply, also.
Report thisBy JaimeInTexas, February 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I am new here and the quote above does not really give a full picture of what Justice Thomas was saying. I am not a lawyer but I have listened to oral arguments and it “is a sort verbal firing squad, with the justices peppering lawyers with questions almost as soon as they begin their presentations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html
(snip)
Elsewhere, he has said that he is silent out of simple courtesy.
“If I invite you to argue your case, I should at least listen to you,” he told a bar association in Richmond, Va., in 2000.
Justice Thomas has also complained about the difficulty of getting a word in edgewise. The current court is a sort of verbal firing squad, with the justices peppering lawyers with questions almost as soon as they begin their presentations.
(snip)
Justice Thomas has also complained about the difficulty of getting a word in edgewise. The current court is a sort of verbal firing squad, with the justices peppering lawyers with questions almost as soon as they begin their presentations.
(snip)
By the time the justices hear arguments, they have read briefs from the parties and their supporters, and most justices say it would be a waste of time to have advocates merely repeat what they have already said in writing.
“If oral argument provides nothing more than the summary of the brief in monologue, it is of very little value to the court,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in 1987.
(snip)
Report thisBy kerryrose, February 23, 2011 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
Asking questions indicates a desire to learn.
Only the most arrogant and close-minded individual could sit in judgement of an important issue without a desire to learn.
It belies a dangerous inflexibility of mind and character.
Report thisBy MarthaA, February 23, 2011 at 2:26 am Link to this comment
What is the point of allowing someone like Thomas to sit on the
Report thisSupreme Court unless it is to obey the Conservative Commands
of his masters, which means the American Common Population
must have a separate political party to represent their class and
culture equally with the other two parties class and cultures, so
that the American Common Population will be able to do something
about this type of situation, instead of just helplessly watching?
By MarthaA, February 23, 2011 at 2:16 am Link to this comment
What is the point of allowing someone like Thomas to sit on the
Report thisSupreme Court unless it is to obey the Conservative Commands
of his masters, which means the American Common Population
must have a separate political party to represent their class and
culture equally with the other two parties class and cultures, so
that the American Common Population will be able to do something
about this type of situation, instead of just helplessly watching.
By Ralph Garner, February 23, 2011 at 1:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What could ever be said or even occur that will ever change the human species, that is nothing more than a uncontrollable cancer on this planet. A revolution either armed or peaceful will never cleanse this world of sick insane humanity. The only salvation for this world would be for a nice big asteroid to totally cleanse the planet and perhaps a second chance for a civilized intelligence could evolve over a few million years.
Report thisBy ocjim, February 22, 2011 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment
Clarence Thomas should be impeached for a number of offenses—both crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of federal courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” involves.
Supreme Court Justices need to be beyond reproach, considering that they make life and death decisions affecting millions of Americans. A democracy requires equal treatment under the law but if those who interpret the law are not subject to the laws they interpret, how can average Americans trust that the system is fair and that decisions rendered by these judges are impartial.
Let’s start with the federal crime of which Clarence is guilty. It is a felony to make false statements to a government agency. This Clarence Thomas did by not reporting on financial disclosure forms almost $700,000 his wife earned over a five year period (2003-2007. Federal judges are required by law to disclose “spousal non-investment income,” but Clarence Thomas checked “none” for the years in question.
His prosecution for this crime is not being considered, for his statement that it was a five year oversight was accepted without comment or investigation.
Unfortunately other citizens seem to be treated differently by the law.
Last month an FBI employee, Rachelle Thomas-Zuill, who oversaw background investigations for the agency in San Francisco, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying about the amount of money she owed on her properties. She said $866,000. It was actually $2.2 million. A 13 year employee, she will be sentenced in April by a district court judge.
Is a total lie better than a partial lie?
The payments to Clarence’s wife, Virginia Thomas, came from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, which supports her activist public cause against President Obama’s health care reform law. Clarence Thomas will soon rule on the constitutionality of this same law which requires Americans to sign up for health care insurance.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, but there is no sign that Justice Thomas will recuse himself.
In the same vein, Thomas did not recuse himself regarding the Citizens United ruling on January 21, 2010 in which he voted with a 5 to 4 majority allowing unlimited spending by corporations to influence elections. This followed political meetings with the billionaire Koch brothers who sought such a ruling and profited by it.
Thomas attended a political retreat for wealthy conservatives 3 years ago, a group which advocated changing campaign finance laws. When Common Cause raised questions about the retreat months ago, a court spokeswoman said that Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, California in January of 2008. His financial disclosure report for that year reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of this retreat.
Report thisBy ocjim, February 22, 2011 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment
Clarence Thomas should be impeached for a number of offenses—both crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of federal courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” involves.
Supreme Court Justices need to be beyond reproach, considering that they make life and death decisions affecting millions of Americans. A democracy requires equal treatment under the law but if those who interpret the law are not subject to the laws they interpret, how can average Americans trust that the system is fair and that decisions rendered by these judges are impartial.
Let’s start with the federal crime of which Clarence is guilty. It is a felony to make false statements to a government agency. This Clarence Thomas did by not reporting on financial disclosure forms almost $700,000 his wife earned over a five year period (2003-2007. Federal judges are required by law to disclose “spousal non-investment income,” but Clarence Thomas checked “none” for the years in question.
His prosecution for this crime is not being considered, for his statement that it was a five year oversight was accepted without comment or investigation.
Unfortunately other citizens seem to be treated differently by the law.
Last month an FBI employee, Rachelle Thomas-Zuill, who oversaw background investigations for the agency in San Francisco, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying about the amount of money she owed on her properties. She said $866,000. It was actually $2.2 million. A 13 year employee, she will be sentenced in April by a district court judge.
Is a total lie better than a partial lie?
The payments to Clarence’s wife, Virginia Thomas, came from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, which supports her activist public cause against President Obama’s health care reform law. Clarence Thomas will soon rule on the constitutionality of this same law which requires Americans to sign up for health care insurance.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, but there is no sign that Justice Thomas will recuse himself.
In the same vein, Thomas did not recuse himself regarding the Citizens United ruling on January 21, 2010 in which he voted with a 5 to 4 majority allowing unlimited spending by corporations to influence elections. This followed political meetings with the billionaire Koch brothers who sought such a ruling and profited by it.
Thomas attended a political retreat for wealthy conservatives 3 years ago, a group which advocated changing campaign finance laws. When Common Cause raised questions about the retreat months ago, a court spokeswoman said that Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, California in January of 2008. His financial disclosure report for that year reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of this retreat.
If the “brief drop-by” is the truth, one might assume they overpaid him. If it is not, then he either lied to cover up his strong political affiliation or has a bad memory. Once again, is this lie considered criminal, a public breach of faith, or an ethics deficiency?
Getting back to Thomas’s Citizens United ruling ayear ago, the ruling had a profound impact on the 2010 midterm election, seeing corporate interests spend tens of millions of dollars for conservative candidates, almost all Republicans. Much of spending was not disclosed and could in no way be matched by unions or by individual donors. There was even proof that foreign interests provided millions of dollars to defeat progressive causes through the American Chamber of Commerce.
Report thisBy NC-Tom, February 22, 2011 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment
How does that saying go? “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than
Report thisto open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”...
By Queenie, February 22, 2011 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment
Back at school only the dumb fucks never asked questions.
Sorry, being black does not get you a free pass with me you sexual pervert.
Report thisBy AT, February 22, 2011 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
did off.Earnest Canning in his Secret History of the CIA part 2 in bradbog in 2009 mention the Chamber of Commerce and AT& T or they are just recent mergers?
Report this(To be continued)
By realveive, February 22, 2011 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment
We can help the budget deficit by dumping Thomas from the court and giving Scalia two votes. There would be no impact on future court adjudications.
Report thisBy faith, February 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
U.S.S.Ct. Justices should not be placed on the bench for life. They should at least
Report thisbe required to step down at age 67. I know, it is arbitrary, but 65 seems too
young and 70 seems too old. Justice Thomas and his wife’s penchant for
marketing her ‘credentials’ because she powerful contacts is a very sad and very
concerning situation for jurisprudence .