No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence [featuring an affirmative action zot]

New York Times ^

[DemonDeac]

"A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument."

"If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions."

"In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. "

[Lancey Howard]

Oral argument = theater. The justices have already made up their minds and prepared draft written opinions by the time of oral argument. Thomas obviously has little interest for such a charade.

What you said BUMP.
Excellent.

[Darksheare]

Your hood is too tight.

[okie01]

Affirmative action hire.

You've never read any of his opinions, have you?

[okie01]

Do you really think that he would have got the job were he not black? Was he really one of the great legal minds?

You still haven't read any of his opinions, have you?

[Arrowhead1952]

[RnMomof7]

My thought too

[CSM]

“Affirmative action hire.”

You are a fool and deserve the zot that you received. Once again you show no actual evidence, just an idiotic chart reflecting the number of questions a Justice asks. Justice Thomas’ opinions are some of the most thought out, constitutaionally straightforward opinions that I have ever read.

So, as usual the libtard community wants to measure a specific issue that has nothing to do with job performance, then when they find that their preferred criteria is lacking they can attack the person’s entire job performance.

You might as well have just called him an Uncle Tom.

[CSM]

“Affirmative action hire? You’re kidding, right?”

Exactly. Plus the idiot libtards are once again forgetting what their beloved leftist media put him through during confirmation.

It must be nice to be a libtard that thinks history begins fresh with every new administration.

[Mr. Lucky]

You're embarrassing yourself.

That would require that he have some sense of decency.

[CSM]

“There is a deliberate, co-ordinated attack of Justice Thomas going on right now in the media and the Soros funded puppetry.”

That is certainly what it looks like to me. I think it is coordinated as an effort to take away his credibility in the minds of liberals (like he had any in their mind) just before the court hears Obamacare.

Just in case Kagan is forced to recuse herself, they are gearing up the reaasons for the screams for Thomas to recuse himself....

Libtards are fools.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Good one ;-)

[TheOldLady]

Would you like me to ping you to those? I think you’ve seen them all at this point, but I do try to add new ones from time to time.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Would you like me to ping you to those? “

Yowza!

[TheOldLady]

My heavens. I have a ping list. You’re the only one on it, but I haz wun! ;-)

[Thunder90]

PING

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Thunder90. He’s a good listener, and thinks about things, including the non-stop stupid leftist tripe of some of his colleagues.

[Ditto]

And anyone who thinks Justice Thomas is a lightweight ought to read his opinions. They are clear, well-reasoned, and manifest a coherent originalist philosophy.

I agree with you. Here are his opinions. And he is not least bit afrade to stand alone when necessary.

[trisham]

He’s one of the most conservative members of the court. You’ve been misled by the NYT.

[trisham]

I just hit the abuse button on this idiot. Please disregard, AM, as it appears that I am late to this thread.

[Rockingham]

The opinions in the First Amendment anonymous speech case of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) are especially revealing. The dissent by Scalia and Rhenquist would have upheld the measure at issue, while Thomas's concurring opinion against it was an undiluted orginalist exposition of the First Amendment. I have twice heard Scalia say that, looking back, he thinks that Thomas was correct.