Jeffrey Toobin on Clarence Thomas in the New Yorker

Rush is an entertainer that plays to his audience. Same as Olberman.

We've discussed before but I've never understood why conservative radio is more effective than liberal radio. Maybe Rush is just better at it than the others.

 

Rush Limbaugh has a forum and an audience in which he could elevate the discourse in this country.

He has chosen to go the other way.

 

I think Maher is a better analogue.

 

I think the Right tends to see things in black and white and be more certain about their opinions -- which tend to be strong on this such as taxes, abortion, gun control, etc. And they like to hear their thoughts being reinforced -- day after day.

The Left see things as more complex and there are lots of different viewpoints and disagreements within the left. It's a tougher crowd to appeal to and few universal agreements -- other loving to tax the hell out of the rich and hand it to the welfare cheats.

 

Eh, I sort of think oral arguments are worthless, too. It's more about the judges signaling to each other through questions than about the advocates answering the questions themselves.

Worse than his failure to ask questions is the way he acts at oral arguments (Toobin documents much of this in his article). But he's certainly not alone in that. Many of the judges talk to each other while lawyers are speaking, etc. Really quite rude.

 

This is a vast oversimplification, though. Would you say that the left in general prefers a nuanced interpretation of a woman's right to an abortion?

 

Thomas is the worst of my lifetime. I have not had to endure Whittaker. I've had the opportunity to see people like O'Connor, Marshall, White, Blackmun, Powell, Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Scalia, Warren, Stewart, Stevens, Kennedy put on the robe and deal with decisions that guide the most basic elements of our lives.

Those justices brought dignity and superior intellectual power to those decisions and for that I commend them. While I did not agree with the philosophies and beliefs of Scalia and Rehnquist, I at least could respect their intellect and passion.

Thomas has brought none of that to the Court. He's written no major decisions. His only claim to fame is his lack of participation in oral argument and the fact that he's there. In hindsight, I'd prefer Bork because at least he'd bring some intellectual power.

 

Ginsburg fell asleep a year or two ago during oral arguments. Adam Liptak and some others took a bath for not calling her out on it.

 

I think O'Connor is the worst in my lifetime. And I don't think it's close.

 

I think most on the left would want the woman to have a choice, whereas most on the right don't want a choice to be available.

 

The point I found most interesting in Toobin's piece -- a point he made but kind of glossed over -- is how silly a philosophy "orginalism" is. He quoted Alito (Alito!) mocking Scalia by saying to an attorney during the video games case "I think the Justice wants to know how James Madison felt about video games. Did he enjoy them?"

These people are like folks who want to adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, never mind the contradictions or absurdities.

Unless Thomas wants to consider himself three-fifths of a person, or would like to be bled and examined for signs of witchcraft the next time he gets sick, he really ought to stop trying to use 18th century ideas about, say, punishment to buttress his opinions about what we ought to do in 2011.

I don't think Thomas is a dunce. I think he is twisted and perverse.

 

Thomas recognizes Constitutional amendments.