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

To: InterceptPoint
The brilliance and superior intellect of Scalia, on the other hand, is very obvious during the courtroom sessions. For me this is persuasive.

To me the justices SHOULD already be cognizant of the Constitutional issues involved before oral argument. Still waters run deep ;o) I've read many of the decisions by Justices Thomas & Scalia, and I have yet to read one that I would consider wrong, or less than insightful opinion by either. I'd be proud to have either serve as Chief Justice. But if I had my pick, I'd pick Justice Thomas.

Harry Reid will not vote to affirm either, so who cares what the slimeball thinks.

21 posted on 12/07/2004 6:36:22 AM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
Funny we quoted the same proverb!

BTW, a little private information - I know one of Justice Thomas's former clerks. He takes a back seat to no-one on sheer intellectual horsepower. He also is a good man, which probably is more important (you can always hire clever law clerks, and the USSC justices can take their pick from the very best in the nation.)

27 posted on 12/07/2004 7:08:08 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices; alessandrofiaschi
There is an almost identical thread running, where I posted this to alessandro:

Certainly you're entitled to prefer your paisan. < wink > But how judges behave in oral arguments says very little about their competence.

Awhile back on public television, I saw an interesting talk Justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. They asked very challenging questions, and he gave remarkably honest answers. One of the kids asked why he does not say much in oral arguments - he responded that it was for a couple of reasons. First, he felt that too many questions in oral argument were "showboating" - he wanted to allow the lawyers to present their case without interrupting (implying that such questions are largely for the purpose of showing off - I happen to agree with him). Second, he mentioned that as a young man he had trouble shaking his "Geechee" accent (from the Ogeechee River, the Savannah equivalent more or less of Gullah) and that made him somewhat diffident about public speaking because of the scorn that rural accent incurred.

So his silence in oral argument has nothing to do with his intellectual ability. Still waters run deep.

link to other thread
30 posted on 12/07/2004 7:13:46 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Harry Reid will not vote to affirm either, so who cares what the slimeball thinks.

Well you are right about that. I probably shouldn't have made the Reid reference because his comments were way out of bounds vis a vis Thomas. I was really only referring to his positive comments about Scalia.

I won't be disappointed if Bush goes for Thomas. I just think Scalia would be the better choice.

45 posted on 12/07/2004 7:54:50 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

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