Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Clarence) Thomas Says He Would Prefer Not to Decide Another Election
NewsMax ^ | 10/28/04 | AP

Posted on 10/28/2004 6:54:15 PM PDT by wagglebee

LAWRENCE, Kan. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday he would prefer not to face another election-related lawsuit, but defended the high court's decision to get involved in the contentious dispute over the 2000 presidential vote in Florida.

"What are you supposed to do when somebody brings a lawsuit?" Thomas asked University of Kansas law students. "You hear people say the Supreme Court jumped into the last election. I find it very ironic that the very people saying judges are interfering are bringing lawsuits."

"What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?"

When asked about the prospect of more litigation over the 2004 vote, Thomas said, "I would prefer not to have to decide it, but that joins a long list of things," adding: "It's my job."

Appointed to the court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, Thomas was part of a 5-4 Supreme Court majority that ended a recount in Florida in 2000, allowing Republican George W. Bush to claim the White House instead of Democrat Al Gore.

Thomas made his comments during a question-and-answer session with about 90 students. He declined to be interviewed afterward; no audio or video recording devices were permitted.

Thomas expressed confidence about his ability to remain impartial, responding to a question about the role religion plays in his work by saying, "You do ask for strength and wisdom to live up to your oath.

"It's because of your religion that you don't do things that are skewed, because it's not right," Thomas said. "You took an oath to be impartial. That's when you ought to leave the court - when you can't look at yourself and say, 'I was impartial.' When I can't, I'll leave."

Thomas acknowledged he was uncomfortable discussing even general legal issues, comparing public discussion of the court's internal discussions about the 2000 election lawsuit to a priest violating the confidentiality of the confessional.

"I think you really have to have a big ego to think that what you have to say is so important that something that is so critically important to the operation of the court can be violated," Thomas said. "I have lots of stuff I could tell you about Bush v. Gore, but I'm not going to tell you."

Thomas did remark on a June ruling in which the high court said prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their captivity; he was one of three dissenters.

Asked if he thought national security could be affected, he replied: "I think we'll see in short order. Some of the people now out of Guantanamo Bay are now fighting against the U.S."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; clarencethomas; florida2000; kerry; supremecourt; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
My guess is that he will be doing it again. Even if Bush has the biggest landslide since Reagan in 1984, sKerry is going to contest every possible state.
1 posted on 10/28/2004 6:54:25 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I would like to see the State Governing bodies step up and claim their constitutional power. If Florida had done that in 2000, just let the "counting" go till Gore claimed victory and then voted to send the correct electors, it would have ended up in the House of Reps where it was constitutionally supposed to be.
Anywho, the Fla. Supremes caused the mess.


2 posted on 10/28/2004 7:00:45 PM PDT by WoodstockCat (DNC and John Kerry: Forgers R' Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Thomas was part of a 5-4 Supreme Court majority "

Wasn't it 7-2 with several justices writing concurring opinions?

3 posted on 10/28/2004 7:02:05 PM PDT by bayourod (Old Media news is poll driven, not event driven, not fact driven, not newsworthy driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

Yes, the main issue of Bush v Gore was decided 7-2


4 posted on 10/28/2004 7:03:28 PM PDT by HalleysFifth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I like Thomas, but he phrased this very badly.

The election was not decided by Clarence Thomas.
It was not decided by a 7-2 majority.
It was not decided by a 5-4 majority.

The election was decided by the voters of Florida and the other 49 states.

5 posted on 10/28/2004 7:07:11 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ho-hum... 5-4 decision did not decide the vote... repeating the big LIE... poor 'ol Newsmax


6 posted on 10/28/2004 7:08:04 PM PDT by jungleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it? -Clarence Thomas

No, because Donald Duck is on Florida's Supreme Court!

7 posted on 10/28/2004 7:18:14 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jungleboy

Actually, NewsMax is just publishing an AP story.


8 posted on 10/28/2004 7:19:43 PM PDT by wagglebee (Benedict Arnold was for American independence before he was against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Pardon moi, but wasn't the Supreme Court's decision all about whether or not to continue allowing the endless counting of ballots with dangling chads, even after said ballots had been counted over & over & over?


9 posted on 10/28/2004 7:22:37 PM PDT by demkicker (I'm Ra th er sick of Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?"

I think electors are going to be appointed as directed by the Legislatures of the several States, and that their votes are going to be counted in a special joint session of the new Congress on January 3, 2005, and that any disputes will be resolved in that session by the political process designed by the founders for that purpose.

The appointment of electors is a nonjusticeable political question, which we have institutions purpose-built to address.

It was a disastrous overreach of the Court to even hear, much less to decide, Bush v. Gore, and they should never, ever do it again.

The body appointed to count the electoral votes, Mr. Justice Thomas, is not the Supreme Court-and the Congress of the United States in joint session is not Donald Duck.

10 posted on 10/28/2004 7:25:54 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Clarence Thomas would make a great chief justice.


11 posted on 10/28/2004 7:29:25 PM PDT by Jemian (America needs Jonathan Edwards, not John Edwards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

he didn't decide the last one! Is Thomas trying to increase the scotus powers also now?


12 posted on 10/28/2004 7:32:06 PM PDT by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jemian

I think if Bush wins next week Thomas (or possibly Scalia) will be elevated to Chief Justice in the spring.


13 posted on 10/28/2004 7:34:04 PM PDT by wagglebee (Benedict Arnold was for American independence before he was against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The court has no place in the elections. Plain and simple.


14 posted on 10/28/2004 8:07:21 PM PDT by Ptarmigan (Proud rabbit hater and killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WoodstockCat

Absolutely correct. The fact that it saw the light of day in SCOTUS will forever scar us.


15 posted on 10/28/2004 8:25:52 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (www.whatyoucrave.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy



Brilliant deduction! CC you're on the cutting edge, too!


16 posted on 10/28/2004 8:48:02 PM PDT by Paperdoll (.........on the cutting edge - it isn't too late to wake up the lemmings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ptarmigan; Carry_Okie; Dog Gone; Grampa Dave; Southack; BOBTHENAILER
That's precisely correct! Elections are a political matter, not a judicial matter. Elements of the Democratic PROCESS are subject to judicial interpretation. The FL Supreme idiots were mis-behaving and like typical Democrats, trying to make up law as they went along. The US Supremes took it upon themselves to step in where FL's legislature and even the US Congress, if necessary, could have resolved the matter the media triggered!!!

The PROCESS would have worked, but somebody took it too the wrong body, due to impatience and the pressure of media hype!!! Fear of the PROCESS breaking down was also a huge factor. So they broke the PROCESS, in order to save order.

The very constitution they all swore to uphold was treated like a "living, breathing, document," and Al Gore won a victory of sorts, proving that statement of his opinion of the constitution, if not the Presidency.

Oh well... Stuff Happens!!!

17 posted on 10/28/2004 8:55:35 PM PDT by SierraWasp (LONG LIVE "WINNER TAKE ALL!!!" Down with "Cows Don't Vote!!!" Stop "Rural Cleansing!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The RATs are ripping this country into pieces. They politicized the Supreme Court by forcing their hand into a decision, in 2000. They had two scenarios to play.

1. Either the Supreme Court would bow down to their attempted election theft.

2. Or they would have to be sacrificed to their false god of liberalism by malevolent aspersions and wanton deception.

The many divisive tentacles of the liberalist are slowly ripping us apart...From the politicization of the Supreme Court, to slandering a sitting President in wartime, to attempting to divide the military with lies and doubt, to dividing friend from friend, husband from wife, family member from family member.

I suppose Satan (the father of lies) is snickering as the Democrat party does his bidding..."A house (or country) divided against itself WILL fall."

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

18 posted on 10/28/2004 10:33:55 PM PDT by Outraged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
...and that any disputes will be resolved in that session by the political process designed by the founders for that purpose.

The Founders didn't design any process for resolving disputed appointments of presidential electors.

19 posted on 10/29/2004 9:27:54 AM PDT by inquest (We have more people patrolling Bosnia's borders than we have patrolling our own borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
The PROCESS would have worked, but somebody took it too the wrong body, due to impatience and the pressure of media hype!!! Fear of the PROCESS breaking down was also a huge factor

The someone who took it to the wrong body was named George W. Bush.

They trusted judges and lawyers, and feared the People acting through their representatives in Congress assembled. They did not fear the process breaking down-it could not break down. What they feared, and still do fear, is a sovereign People acting in their own interest and exercising the awesome power they are granted by the Constitution.

As they fear the People in matters pertaining to religion, race, criminal justice, family law, immigration and nationality, and a million other things.

In the middle ages, they said "lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law of speech is the law of belief.

Our elites, including President Bush, speak to the courts when they should speak to the People.

Bush v. Gore was an unmitigated disaster, not in its result but in the fact that it was brought, and then heard.

its actual effects have not yet been manifested, but by December 1 of this year, they will be all too clear.

20 posted on 10/29/2004 9:36:38 AM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson