Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:09 pm

Interesting piece in the WaPo today pushing for Justice Thomas to fun for President in 2012.

First reason?

Quote:
The end of the Supreme Court term later this month marks a milestone: four years in which Justice Clarence Thomas hasn't spoken during oral arguments. That's more than 250 cases heard, and not one word from Thomas, the longest silence of his nearly 19 years on the bench.

Is he unhappy? Bored? Restless?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10061103249.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Might sound implausible, but then so was another black lawyer/senator on the other side of the aisle running in the 2008 election.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8548
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:22 pm

It isn't going to happen. Republican voters in 2012 will want someone with serious executive experience. Were watching first hand the problems of an administration that has never managed anything more than a campaign.

And how was Obama's nomination in 2008 at all unimaginable? He was the brightest star in his party after his speech at the 2004 DNC.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19621
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:34 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Interesting piece in the WaPo today pushing for Justice Thomas to fun for President in 2012.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
It isn't going to happen. Republican voters in 2012 will want someone with serious executive experience. Were watching first hand the problems of an administration that has never managed anything more than a campaign.

What, market recocering? Healthcare passed? Finance reform on its way to passing? Environmental legislation under way? Troops well on their way out of Iraq? DADT on the way out the door?

Tell me, other than a faster economic turnaround, which we all know is not under control of the President, what has he really fouled up that the GOP didn't first foul up for him?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:05 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Tell me, other than a faster economic turnaround, which we all know is not under control of the President,
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
What, market recocering?

Can't have it both ways....
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Were watching first hand the problems of an administration that has never managed anything more than a campaign.

"W" had executive experience in both private industry and as Governor of Texas.

Cheney had senior level executive experience in both private industry (CEO of Haliburton) and government (SecDev).

So what did this incredibly high level of "management experience" get us?

Fuel prices through the roof (got shares in Haliburton, anyone/)

A totally unnecessary war in Iraq.

And, or course,

The Great Recession.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Republican voters in 2012 will want someone with serious executive experience.

I guess that means you'll draft Cheney. Can't think of another CEO type that would be up for it. Oh, wait. There is that broad who was CEO of HP and "left with a $25 Mil parachute" after buying Compaq.   
 
D L X
Posts: 11638
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:11 pm

I find it very disturbing that David Lat, a man I know, a lawyer, and a former Supreme Court clerk prospect, would judge Thomas based on how much he speaks at argument. It is not part of a judge's or a justice's job to bloviate on the bench. It doesn't mean he's bored, it means he's not a blowhard.
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:35 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
It doesn't mean he's bored, it means he's not a blowhard.

I should think it means that he's actually paying attention to the arguments being presented before him. How novel!!  
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8548
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:47 pm

The markets are not recovering Doc. The May jobs report was frighteningly bad with a mere 41,000 private sector jobs created. Economic indicators show small and large businesses cramming activity into 2010 before the Bush tax rationalizations expire in 2011. If they do expire, prepare for another painful contraction. That's something the President and Democrats in Congress could fix if they weren't committed to class warfare. Just like they could have joined Republicans in tightening lending standards in 2004.

You want to credit the President for environmental regulations that haven't and won't be passed - and if they did would further raise energy prices and slow job growth? You should know Ken that gas prices soared during the Bush admin because of basic supply and demand. How do you feel about a President who wants to deliberately increase energy prices via taxation? That is exactly what Obama aims to do - and I'm sure it will be to the financial benefit of his allies.

I'm not at all ashamed that U.S troops removed one of the worlds' worst tyrants from power. It was the surge under Bush that stabilized the country so that our troops could be withdrawn. A surge Obama opposed, yet a strategy he is now using in Afghanistan.

Healthcare reform? It took over a year for Democrats to pass a bill despite holding the White House and majorities in Congress. Months later the majority of Americans still oppose the bill. It is known that the bill will add a trillion dollars in spending while we still haven't addressed the $40 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations. Employers left and right are citing the bill as a reason they aren't hiring. That is not success.

So I have yet to see tangible progress made in any of the multitude of issues that need addressing. And now one-third through his term, all we hear from the administration and its supporters are deflections about George Bush and Dick Cheney. There is an abject failure of leadership taking place that is indeed worse than the preceding administration.

Ken, I think you should take a look at one Mitch Daniels who has performed wonders as Indiana governor. That is the sort of experience we need in the White House, and I have little doubt he would have more of it in 2012 than the incumbent.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:08 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
It is not part of a judge's or a justice's job to bloviate on the bench. It doesn't mean he's bored, it means he's not a blowhard.

But a semi-inelligent question once or twice a year would not cause too much strain on the guy. Well, maybe it would.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
That's something the President and Democrats in Congress could fix if they weren't committed to "class warfare."

Class warfare? When the vast majority of the "Bush Tax Cuts" went to the high income groups it's pretty hard to say that the Democrats are into class warfare.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
I'm not at all ashamed that U.S troops removed one of the worlds' worst tyrants from power.

I could care less about the "tyrant's" and "Freedom" bits. We were given the WMD/BS and the "urgent need to invade" and unfortunately we believed the Republicans in the White House.

Reality is that more Americans died in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks. Let's not even count the wounded.

And long term we're looking at $3 Trillion or more in costs. My bet is that it will be a lot more.

As a Vietnam Vet I have zero tolerance for the crap that came out of the Bush WHite House. I believe that those serving in uniform deserve a higher standard of behavior from their senior leadership. Bush & Cheney were total failures when looking at their leadership and care of the troops. That's what you should be ashamed of,

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
It was the surge under Bush that stabilized the country so that our troops could be withdrawn.

A surge (how many years too late) in a war that should never have happened.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:08 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
It was the surge under Bush that stabilized the country so that our troops could be withdrawn. A surge Obama opposed, yet a strategy he is now using in Afghanistan.

Hey lets be completely honest here... that surge would never have been needed if President Bush had listened to the experts on warfare, and not the grossly incompetent Donald Rumsfeld. The generals who advocated a larger fighting force were silenced by his administration. It wasn't until the administration was desperate, that they were willing to listen to those generals.

Not to mention, I give zero credit to President Bush for the surge, and all the credit for two of the greatest leaders in the US military: Generals David Patraeus and Ray Odierno.

If anyone was going to run for President, it should be one of those two men. Although I wouldn't personally encourage them to do so, because the bullshit games in Washington would sully their otherwise outstanding legacies.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8548
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:40 pm

I can't quote text effectively on a smartphone so bear with me.

The highest income earners are also the largest investors and job creators. The Bush tax cuts were a god-send to small business owners who often hold the majority of their wealth in their own company and are dynamic job creators. These are not people living lavish lifestyles, but simply committing the crime of being highly productive with capital. Yet Democrats to this day paint the tax cuts as a kick-back to corporate fat cats.

As for the invasion of Iraq, Hussein continued to flaunt arms control inspectors until his downfall. Controls that were put ini place because he invaded neighboring peaceful states and developed and used WMDs on his own people. It's also impossible to know what arc history would have taken otherwise, especially since AQ put so much effort into bogging down our military in Iraq as oppose to launching attacks against the public in the United States. However you see it, we can't just excuse the current administration from grave policy mistakes in foreign and domestic policy because his predecessor made one 8 years ago.

Lastly, I would like to again thank ken, uh60, and their comrades for their service. We will always be indebted to our servicemen and women.
 
D L X
Posts: 11638
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:13 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
But a semi-inelligent question once or twice a year would not cause too much strain on the guy.

Would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Because it really has zero to do with law. Fact is, until recently, Supreme Court justices were not particularly chatty. The briefs are where you make your arguments.

Check out an argument at any of the Courts of Appeals. You will find that they're not nearly so chatty as the Supreme Court, and you'll find that there are MANY judges that do not speak at argument. And until someone can tell me what the point is that requires it, I'll continue to criticize them for using that as some metric to criticize a judge. It really is a silly metric.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:19 pm

I think this thread has come off the rails ...
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
D L X
Posts: 11638
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:37 am

Quoting planespotting (Reply 12):
I think this thread has come off the rails ...

in record time. And to be honest, I'm surprised at who it was that sent it off topic.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:11 am

To return to the original theme of this thread...

I doubt in the modern age it would not be wise or even ethical for a US Supreme Court Justice to resign to run for public office. At to Justice Thomas personally, I think he is a very private person, one who would not want to be in public elected office nor who we really want to be a politican. We know little of his current life and of his politics, mainly from those cases he does participate in the writing of a decision or a desenting opinion, some speeches/comments and his books. I also suspect that unlike the situation as to his nomination, we now have the internet, many public records and so on on him that could be used against him if he chose to run for a public office.

That he does not ask questions during oral arguements may be just a matter of style, that he feels other justices may be better at asking questions during times, he may perfer to decide from the briefs and he may be more vocal in the court's chambers where the Justices discuss the cases among themselves.

Perhaps if a Republican is elected in 2012, he may choose to resign after that election, secure another conservative may be put in then become a behind the scenes leader of a Conservative political organization like the one his wife is involved with.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:10 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
What, market recocering?

Correct, what market recovering?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Healthcare passed?

Over the objection of more than 50% of the electorate, and still not approved by more that 50% of the electorate even after a continuing sales job after it was signed into law.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Finance reform on its way to passing?

So we can thank the democrats when after it's passage there is still no financial recovery?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Environmental legislation under way?

In the form of taxing the living daylights out of ordinary citizens for a basic need, that being power? Jeez why not just pass a big heaping tax on food while were at it...oh wait, since the farmers will have to pay more for their energy bill, we will!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Troops well on their way out of Iraq?

Which was negotiated before the current administration took office.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
DADT on the way out the door?

Over the objections of senior commanders who know more about the military than the President does.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Tell me, other than a faster economic turnaround, which we all know is not under control of the President

How about that stimulus program...you know, the one that was going to hold unemployment to 8%?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
what has he really fouled up that the GOP didn't first foul up for him?

How many days has Gov. Jindal and Gov, Barbor been asking him to cut the red tape that the EPA has in place to help clean up the oil spill and what has he done?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
Fuel prices through the roof (

What roof? Prices here are the same they have been for months.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
A totally unnecessary war in Iraq.

Personal opinion

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
The Great Recession.

Which of course you again overlook that the President callled for reform in Fannie and Freddie in at least two State of the Union speeches and then took a beating over from the likes of Dodd and Frank.

If Justice Thomas doesn't ask a question there is nothing to be derived from that other than he didn't ask a question. That in no way implies he doesn't understand the argument or that his bored or anything else.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:36 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 11):
And until someone can tell me what the point is that requires it, I'll continue to criticize them for using that as some metric to criticize a judge. It really is a silly metric.

It seems to me that only major cases reach theSupreme Court and, by the time of oral arguments, both sides would have provided significant briefs. I would hope those briefs had been studied before the oral arguments. In addition, I would find it amazing that Thomas (or probably his Clerks) would not find at least a few questions somewhere in the natural conflict of the two (or more) briefs.

Quoting dxing (Reply 15):
Personal opinion

And, of course, NO WMDs.  




Edited for spelling

[Edited 2010-06-14 03:37:27]
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:48 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 15):
Over the objections of senior commanders who know more about the military than the President does.

Those senior commanders voicing objections regarding the repeal of DADT ought to be shown the door. If they cannot wrap their heads around the fact that numerous other countries allow gay men and women to serve openly without fear of reprisal, and that this has not led to any negative repercussions, then they have no business being senior commanders. Frankly, they are more than likely nothing but petty bigots.

Quoting dxing (Reply 15):
What roof? Prices here are the same they have been for months.

That's nice for you, but where I live, prices have been steadily rising for quite some time now.

Quoting dxing (Reply 15):
Personal opinion

But your belief that the war was necessary is absolute fact right?
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
D L X
Posts: 11638
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:48 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
It seems to me that only major cases reach theSupreme Court

That's really quite far from the truth. Major cases are heard every day by hundreds of our federal courts. The Supreme Court only takes 80 a year, and usually passes over other cases because all 9 think the lower court got it right.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
I would hope those briefs had been studied before the oral arguments.

Of course they have.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
In addition, I would find it amazing that Thomas (or probably his Clerks) would not find at least a few questions somewhere in the natural conflict of the two (or more) briefs.

"Find at least a few questions..." to satisfy you? As I keep saying, there's nothing in asking questions that makes you a better judge. Besides that, as much bloviation coming from the other justices (Kennedy *cough* *cough*) why is it important for Thomas to ask the same question that was just asked?
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Clarence Thomas In 2012?

Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:33 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
And, of course, NO WMDs.

Just like your continuing efforts to portray the extreme as the norm in medical matters, your continuing effort to overlook the two other stated reasons for our invading Iraq does not surprise me in the least.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 17):
Those senior commanders voicing objections regarding the repeal of DADT ought to be shown the door.

Until DADT is repealed by the President or until its repeal is included in a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President the Senior Commanders have every right, in fact duty, to voice their opinions on the matter.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 17):
That's nice for you, but where I live, prices have been steadily rising for quite some time now.

And how is that the fault of the Bush administration that fuel prices are rising anywhere now which wsa Ken777's position? It is the summer season.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 17):
But your belief that the war was necessary is absolute fact right?

My belief that the war was necessary is a fact, but it is still my opinion.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
"Find at least a few questions..." to satisfy you? As I keep saying, there's nothing in asking questions that makes you a better judge. Besides that, as much bloviation coming from the other justices (Kennedy *cough* *cough*) why is it important for Thomas to ask the same question that was just asked?

Agreed (hard as that may be to believe).
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Doona and 15 guests