Is Clarence Thomas dead weight?

Clarence's problem is he's got the wrong kind of clerks working for him:

 

I think that he has the same 4 that everyone has (not sure). He certainly has the resources to prepare himself to ask the proper questions if he chooses to. Given that I don't believe that he ever argued an appellate motion as an attorney, maybe he's either not comfortable with the process or thinks that it is a waste of time. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence that he is any sort of legal heavyweight.

I think that he has a way of looking at issues and that you know where he is going to come down before the opinion comes down. I haven't been neither impressed not offended by the logic of aything which he has written, even if I may disagree with the way he comes to many conclusions. I think that it was Scalia who said something to the effect of -- if people think that I'm extreme, I'm nothing compared to this guy.

 

At the time he was elevated, he was manifestly unqualified, as the ABA pointed out. He also -- I believe -- lied to the Senate committee not merely about his relationship with female subordinates, but also about whether or not he'd ever discussed Roe v. Wade.
Don't bring Harriett Miers back into this. That's setting the bar at about magma-level.

 

He has said that it's more B than A, you can decide whether you want to believe him is up to you. I didn't say it was evidence that he was, but it was brought uo as evidence that he is a lightweight, which it isn't.

That is clearly true - Scalia makes compromises, Thomas is far more idealogically consistent.

 

Was he less qualified than Souter?

Either way, there is no question that he got it in part for being black. But, it says something to be the best candidate within any quota, when the admission number is one. Also, those are (unfortunately) the rules of the game in today's world. That being the case, the only fair way to evaluate him is based on his performance once he got there, which I have heard here is terrible, but not from anyone who has any basis for saying so. I think, by any measure I can think of, he's been good to great.

 

Souter was way more qualified than Thomas.

 

In the history of the Country, there is no equal to Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court, and he's there for only 1 reason, he's black. He knows it too. There were 10,000 lawyers in the country more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than Thomas when he was nominated.

He's a buffoon, a sick man with enormous problems and yet he remains a Supreme Court Justice for Life.

I've read his opinions, though most of them are meaningless,though, as I've said, he writes very few majority opinions of consequence.

 

I think you're lying.

 

Opinions authored, joined: See http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas/opinions/2000-2009/

That said, he's among the strict constructionists that refuse to let the Constitution evolve. Only in his case, there's the addendum: "unless a GOP-based initiative is served." From Gore v. Bush to the NSA case, he's come down on the Republican side whether it fits with his stated consitutional conservatism or not. And that, most of all, makes him a bad justice. I don't mind consistency, even if I disagree with it. I can respect that. I cannot respect Thomas. F him and the RV he rode into town on.

 

Every judge is results oriented when it really matters. Doesn't matter which side that they are on.

 

He argued a number of cases before the Missouri Supreme Court when he worked under Danforth in the state AG's office at the very beginning of his career.

And he does have the same number of clerks as everyone else

 

Didn't realize that he had argued cases -- I'd be interested to see how many or what he experience was with respect to the oral argument.