Why he has a chip on his shoulder…
And why he can’t let it go.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Robt October 3, 2007 4:02 am
Ed,
Thank you.
My working hours conflict with Mark’s Scoop-time. Thomas’ actions truely is near alarming and shall reflect on his credibility of jurisprudence of his future rulings. “America held hostage by a SCJ’s misguided spite for others. He seems to conclude his own personal character popularity is what is important for America. Not the position of weight of his Supreme Court decisions and their effects on the nation.
I thought Mark covered this pretty good. The Whine angle is a very perceptive description. The only question is? What is America’s expectations of Supreme Court Justices?
Formany Congressmen and Senators and President, the bar seems set fairly low right now.
Does any of it seem as troublesome to you as it does me.?
Robert October 2, 2007 6:04 pm
Robert’s comments were posted on the Week in Review prior to today’s show topic on Clarence Thomas being chosen. As they are quite interesting and well put, I have copied them here as well — Ed.
I find Justice Clarence Thomas’s coming out as precariously troublesome and possibly indicative of challenges that face this nation.
Justice Thomas was indeed a very questional person. His knowledge of the law was never in question that I recall. It was Ideology over the law, his interpretations of the law, along with his personal lifes use of the law in such a manner that he felt should leave him unapproached or some might say, above such law.
The nation was made very aware of the Justices strong ideological interpretations of the law, among other questionable characteristics. It is the Senate’s DUTY to screen in confirmation of such nominees. In said duty confirmed Thomas all the same.
Thomas now appears to be hateful of such a Democracy that would question him during a confirmation to the Supreme Court of the land.
I have not been aware of any active seated SCJ’s writing tell all books for profit while sctively seated. Have you?
Should SCJ’s or anyone else for that matter in such a vital & volatile public position that is a life time appointment be putting out their personal ideologies, and personal bias’?
Does anyone at all see some sort of conflict of interests in future cases that Justice Thomas now may have placed on himself, to be critical of his lack of predisposed positions on matter(s) that will come before him?
Will we see him “recuse” himself in the future or avidly avenge rulings he holds disdain for making his legal premise fit his bias, disdain and ideology. These were questions raised during his confirmation that he states he holds in contempt now. And Repubs decry of teachers with tenor they dislke and are stuck with?
I seems to me that Justice Thomas is advocating that he has a bias of any liberal issue because he felt personally strained during his confirmation. He transfers his “liberal” disdain to “Democrat” disdain. His expressed discontent for “liberals” and liberal issues places him back into an original confirming question for Thomas.
Question being,
Could Thomas interpret the law without too extreme of an idealogues agenda that he could provide legal address without (too much) bias when this bias (now self proclaimed publically), is that deeply rooted in his soul apparently?
And does this place him, his granted authority, and his own personal ideals at odds with main stream American’s that may cause him to make oppressive rulings on matters of law that he percieves he is above and these matters are now for the masses?
I recall Robert Bork’s nomination and how controvrsial & of idealogical presence of mind over leagal matter that was. There was no doubt that Bork was intelligent and studious. Yet his personal ideology came first, and the law 2nd. In my opinion mind you. I am not sure, but wasn’t Thomas the next nominee after Bork?
I know After Harriet Miers nomination Alito would look better to those that did not pay attention.
Is the pay and benefits of the supreme court Justices such that they are not a living wage for them to live comfortable on the tax payers, that pay their salaries. We know Tony Snow couldn’t make it off of $168,000 per yr and all the cancer treatment he was able to use off tax payers. That didn’t even have health insurance, right?
So Mark, this SCJ “coming out” phenom that is trending should be added to your WeeK in Review at the least. Like to hear your perspective with your constitutional background?
Is it like going to a Jury trial and having a jurist, Judge personally hateful of you and expecting justice to rule, law to be upheld?
On one hand we can appreciate Justice Thomas’ honesty, his free market opportunities to make a dollar from the seat of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice seat in which he presides. But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings? And does he somehow dishonor the Supreme Court with such books for profit and bias?
I mean the man speaks of those he dislikes but successfully overcame these attackers to be confirmed.
Thomas dislikes his confirmation? There are those that dislike the manditory drug and Alcohol test as a employee hiring process. But Thomas supports this on others in their hiring process and has no trouble.
So, Was Justice Thomas given a drug and alcohol test prior his confirmation?
His use of free speech is comended and praised if not unappropriate and undistinguished of the SCJ’s in my view.
Thomas exercises his free speech not from a cycloned off free speech zone far away from being heard, he is endowed to his free speech from the people’s seat of the Supreme Court.
But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings?
For Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, ADM secretaries, Generals in charge of an active war, et al should not engage in this type of free speech for profit while in office. Save it for retirement then it really is a memoir.
Marty October 2, 2007 5:18 pm
Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom”?
I guess hasn’t heard my father and I talk about him. We (as two black men), refer to him in terms worse than what Harry Belafonte says. Just to put it simply, my father and I call him a “House N—-“. I don’t think I need to finish the last word.
After Thurgood Marshall, Thomas was put in there to be a “Yes Man” long before “The Yes Men” got going. That’s why GW refers to Thomas as his “model justice” or something like that.
“The Yes Men,” of course, invade the corridors of powers to reveal their true nature with some wit.
Sue October 2, 2007 3:44 pm
Mark,
Remember the study about how whiney, insecure kids grew up to be conservatives? There’s your answer: It’s in his damn DNA! LOL!
Does he still laugh about imaginary pubic hairs??
-Sue
Ed,
Thank you.
My working hours conflict with Mark's Scoop-time. Thomas' actions truely is near alarming and shall reflect on his credibility of jurisprudence of his future ruling... More >>
Robt October 3, 2007 4:02 am
Ed,
Thank you.
My working hours conflict with Mark’s Scoop-time. Thomas’ actions truely is near alarming and shall reflect on his credibility of jurisprudence of his future rulings. “America held hostage by a SCJ’s misguided spite for others. He seems to conclude his own personal character popularity is what is important for America. Not the position of weight of his Supreme Court decisions and their effects on the nation.
I thought Mark covered this pretty good. The Whine angle is a very perceptive description. The only question is? What is America’s expectations of Supreme Court Justices?
Formany Congressmen and Senators and President, the bar seems set fairly low right now.
Does any of it seem as troublesome to you as it does me.?
Robert October 2, 2007 6:04 pm
Robert’s comments were posted on the Week in Review prior to today’s show topic on Clarence Thomas being chosen. As they are quite interesting and well put, I have copied them here as well — Ed.
I find Justice Clarence Thomas’s coming out as precariously troublesome and possibly indicative of challenges that face this nation.
Justice Thomas was indeed a very questional person. His knowledge of the law was never in question that I recall. It was Ideology over the law, his interpretations of the law, along with his personal lifes use of the law in such a manner that he felt should leave him unapproached or some might say, above such law.
The nation was made very aware of the Justices strong ideological interpretations of the law, among other questionable characteristics. It is the Senate’s DUTY to screen in confirmation of such nominees. In said duty confirmed Thomas all the same.
Thomas now appears to be hateful of such a Democracy that would question him during a confirmation to the Supreme Court of the land.
I have not been aware of any active seated SCJ’s writing tell all books for profit while sctively seated. Have you?
Should SCJ’s or anyone else for that matter in such a vital & volatile public position that is a life time appointment be putting out their personal ideologies, and personal bias’?
Does anyone at all see some sort of conflict of interests in future cases that Justice Thomas now may have placed on himself, to be critical of his lack of predisposed positions on matter(s) that will come before him?
Will we see him “recuse” himself in the future or avidly avenge rulings he holds disdain for making his legal premise fit his bias, disdain and ideology. These were questions raised during his confirmation that he states he holds in contempt now. And Repubs decry of teachers with tenor they dislke and are stuck with?
I seems to me that Justice Thomas is advocating that he has a bias of any liberal issue because he felt personally strained during his confirmation. He transfers his “liberal” disdain to “Democrat” disdain. His expressed discontent for “liberals” and liberal issues places him back into an original confirming question for Thomas.
Question being,
Could Thomas interpret the law without too extreme of an idealogues agenda that he could provide legal address without (too much) bias when this bias (now self proclaimed publically), is that deeply rooted in his soul apparently?
And does this place him, his granted authority, and his own personal ideals at odds with main stream American’s that may cause him to make oppressive rulings on matters of law that he percieves he is above and these matters are now for the masses?
I recall Robert Bork’s nomination and how controvrsial & of idealogical presence of mind over leagal matter that was. There was no doubt that Bork was intelligent and studious. Yet his personal ideology came first, and the law 2nd. In my opinion mind you. I am not sure, but wasn’t Thomas the next nominee after Bork?
I know After Harriet Miers nomination Alito would look better to those that did not pay attention.
Is the pay and benefits of the supreme court Justices such that they are not a living wage for them to live comfortable on the tax payers, that pay their salaries. We know Tony Snow couldn’t make it off of $168,000 per yr and all the cancer treatment he was able to use off tax payers. That didn’t even have health insurance, right?
So Mark, this SCJ “coming out” phenom that is trending should be added to your WeeK in Review at the least. Like to hear your perspective with your constitutional background?
Is it like going to a Jury trial and having a jurist, Judge personally hateful of you and expecting justice to rule, law to be upheld?
On one hand we can appreciate Justice Thomas’ honesty, his free market opportunities to make a dollar from the seat of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice seat in which he presides. But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings? And does he somehow dishonor the Supreme Court with such books for profit and bias?
I mean the man speaks of those he dislikes but successfully overcame these attackers to be confirmed.
Thomas dislikes his confirmation? There are those that dislike the manditory drug and Alcohol test as a employee hiring process. But Thomas supports this on others in their hiring process and has no trouble.
So, Was Justice Thomas given a drug and alcohol test prior his confirmation?
His use of free speech is comended and praised if not unappropriate and undistinguished of the SCJ’s in my view.
Thomas exercises his free speech not from a cycloned off free speech zone far away from being heard, he is endowed to his free speech from the people’s seat of the Supreme Court.
But where was that honesty during the confirmation hearings?
For Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, ADM secretaries, Generals in charge of an active war, et al should not engage in this type of free speech for profit while in office. Save it for retirement then it really is a memoir.
Marty October 2, 2007 5:18 pm
Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom”?
I guess hasn’t heard my father and I talk about him. We (as two black men), refer to him in terms worse than what Harry Belafonte says. Just to put it simply, my father and I call him a “House N—-“. I don’t think I need to finish the last word.
After Thurgood Marshall, Thomas was put in there to be a “Yes Man” long before “The Yes Men” got going. That’s why GW refers to Thomas as his “model justice” or something like that.
“The Yes Men,” of course, invade the corridors of powers to reveal their true nature with some wit.
Sue October 2, 2007 3:44 pm
Mark,
Remember the study about how whiney, insecure kids grew up to be conservatives? There’s your answer: It’s in his damn DNA! LOL!
Does he still laugh about imaginary pubic hairs??
-Sue