1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Clarence Thomas dead weight?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Pulitzer Wannabe, Feb 25, 2008.

  1. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    So go watch poker on TV. I didn't know you were on SportsJournalists.com at the point of a gun.
     
  2. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    I'll take this dismissive and irrelevant statement to mean you admit your double standard.
     
  3. Brennan was a great justice.
    Black was a great justice.
    Frankfurter and Jackson were great judges.
    This guy? Not so much.
    Nothing in two years? Do we even know if the word "weight" in the thread title is necessary?
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    You have to know better than this, no?
     
  5. Oh, I'm sorry.
    Please enlighten me on the genius that is Clarence. Perhaps his dissent in the term limits case that set constitutional thinking back to the battle of Gettysburg, or his opinion in the Alabama prison case where he said tying a guy to a post in the sun for six hours was neither cruel nor unusual. A nasty bag of pathologies, this gent.
     
  6. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Now you're at least discussing it correctly, by evaluating his opinions. Judging SC justices by the how much they speak is like judging QBs by number of rushing attempts.
     
  7. OK, and I am not being in the least snarky here, but isn't two years without chipping in on the oral arguments unusual? Were there similarly mute justices in the past? I'm not SCOTUS historian to know that, but I know most of the justices in my lifetime were more chatty than that.
     
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I know the answer.

    But I ain't sayin'.
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    No clue, who cares? Not really part of the job description, and as we know from any other context, do you want to just give credit for talking without taking into account what was said? Much of the questioning is posturing for each other & the public. He doesn't give a damn what the public thinks - very much not his job description. His writing is quite elegant, far, far more understated than Scalia, but almost always more consistent and tightly argued. You can disagree with him, I know you do, but whenever I hear people talk about him like a moron I think there's at least a 75% that they've never read an opinion of his, and a 90+% chance that they've never read more than a couple.
     
  10. pallister

    pallister Guest

    So you don't evaluate SC justices based on their opinions. So what the hell do you evaluate them on -- how well they dress?
     
  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Read "My Grandfather's Son", and get back to us, y'all.

    The Justice carries a huge, HUGE chip on his shoulder.
     
  12. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Maybe once the Democrats take a 67-seat Senate majority, we can impeach the lot of them and remove them from the bench.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page