Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 22, 2014

Jeffrey Toobin: As of this Saturday, February 22, eight years will have passed since Clarence Thomas last asked a question during a Supreme Court oral argument. His behavior on the bench has gone from curious to bizarre to downright embarrassing, for himself and for the institution he represents. ... By refusing to acknowledge the advocates or his fellow-Justices, Thomas treats them all with disrespect. It would be one thing if Thomas's petulance reflected badly only on himself, which it did for the first few years of his ludicrous behavior. But at this point, eight years on, Thomas is demeaning the Court.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Imagine, for a moment, if all nine Justices behaved as Thomas does on the bench. The public would rightly, and immediately, lose all faith in the Supreme Court. Instead, the public has lost, and should lose, any confidence it might have in Clarence Thomas.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

He got cut to ribbons by his fellows last time he tried to ask questions, and make an argument in public.

Once bitten, ever shy.

#1 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-02-22 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

He lives by the maxim: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-22 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Thomas is easy to understand. Justice is for sale. He has turned his appointment into a Conservative cash machine with his wife providing convenient arms lengths transactions into their joint checking accounts.

#3 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-22 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Toobin long ago sold out his profession to become a pundit. His problem with Thomas is ideological not whether Thomas engages lawyers from the bench. Many judges don't engage, something Toobin has forgotten in his time in the ivory tower. Although, acknowledging Thomas' competence Toobin nevertheless describes him as a "nut."

Petulant, yes that describes Toobin's little rant. That and irrelevant.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-22 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you need to ask yourself one question. Do you honestly believe that the Citizens United decision made American democracy more or less fair? Do you honestly want billionaires in China to have the ability ,through the corporate veil, to be able to significantly effect elections here? I doubt many right wing ideologues, that post here, are capable of honestly asking themselves those questions but I know what I think, and you probably do too. It would be impossible, IMHO, to adequately express the disdain I feel for all of the corporate five. Thomas is no better and no worse than the rest, they are responsible for real harm to our nation and we aren't done feeling the effects of their completely illogical and corrupt decision.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-22 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Thomas is just too lazy to read or listen to the cases. He has underlings to do that for him.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-22 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thomas is just too lazy to read or listen to the cases. He has underlings to do that for him.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-22 04:51 PM | Reply

Sounds like our current POTUS----didn't know anything about the ACA, didn't know about fast and furious, didn't know about the NSA intrusions, didn't know about the IRS looking inappropriately into certain taxpayer's affairs. He must have underlings to do all that.

#7 | Posted by matsop at 2014-02-22 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Post a thread about the POTUS then. Stop spamming this one.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-22 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, do you like how I sounded the conservative dog whistle and found a bitch running up poste haste? You can't help yourself.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-22 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Do you honestly believe that the Citizens United decision made American democracy more or less fair?

I don't like the result of Citizens United either but what does that have to do with the SC? It is the Court's job to decide the constitutionality of acts of the legislature, not what's fair. That, "what's fair," is the job of the legislature. In fact, that question, "is American democracy more or less fair" because of money in electioneering was not before the Court, the First Amendment was before the Court. The Court said prohibiting free speech at a certain time during an election violates the constitution. The Court left open several options for the legislature to rein in the influence of money in elections.

Now, ask yourself a question, what has the legislature done in the four years since the case was decided to rein in that money. You, I and everybody else knows the answer, not a god damn thing. There, I left you an opening to rant about the Republicans getting in the way.

Oh, and keep your eyes open, McCutcheon is coming, possibly this week. It's another First Amendment case dealing with money and electioneering.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-22 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you honestly want billionaires in China to have the ability ,through the corporate veil, to be able to significantly effect elections here?"

POL...didn't bother you in '92 and '96 though, did it, danni? The Chinese ...and even the Korean nuns were active for your boys back then, you know. Your partisan slip is really showing, LOL.

#11 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-22 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought it was racist for rich white men brought up in a life of privilage to speak ill of black men....even if they are correct. I swear I wish someone would publish a rule book or something.

#12 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2014-02-22 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

This may be why he keeps his pie hole shut.

cognitivedissonance.tumblr.com

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-22 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a joke and a hatchet job. Proves absolutely nothing.

#14 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-22 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it's a good thing that our token, Black conservative Supreme Court justice knows the limits on his competence and ability to defend his indefensible positions. It's just sad that the seat occupied by Marshall, an eminently qualified jurist who argued and won the most cases of any lawyer before the the Supreme Court, winning 29 out of 32 cases, has been replaced by Thomas, an utter failure to the legal profession and to justice.

#15 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-22 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

.... "downright embarrassing, for himself and for the institution he represents"

**** You mean "The US Govt Crime Syndicate" of course! Funny nobody in the Main Stream Media finds or interprets that as embarrassing!

#16 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-02-22 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

When was the last time the supreme court handed down any ruling in favor of the working man instead of corporate interests?

5 justices were appointed by republicans, 4 by democrats, and most rulings come down to 5-4 decisions in favor of corporate interests. Dubya's Cheif justice appointment john roberts is the one who made citizens united blow the lid off corporate donations in our elections.

If you need any other reason to NOT vote republican, this is it. People want dems to stop complaining about Dubya? We'll do that when his supreme court appointments die off. Then his damage might finally be done.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-22 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I see nothing wrong with thomas however I think all the liberal judges should be impeached for voting against the Constitution in every decision.

And the press should stop telling the lie that the judges have a lifetime appointment. Thats not in the Constitution they can be removed from office at any time by impeachment.

#18 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-23 01:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well when every liberal on the court decides your town can take your property and give it to another individual or corporation in order to sweeten property tax revenues, is anything wrong? C'mon, liberals, is anything wrong with that?
Clarence Thomas and Scalia voted against it.
If any of you ponder the Kelo decision long enough, you will become very conservative.

#19 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-23 01:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Justice Thomas is actually one of the most prolific writers on the court. His opinions in ether the descent or majority rulings are no joke. Not asking questions during court is not the measure of a judge, his reason and knowledge of the law is. Many judges seldom ask questions from the bench, if they do it is in "side bar", (not in transcript). What happens in oral arguments at the SCOTUS is mostly a show, the real action is when these nine are arguing the points of a case in chambers, not recorded except in their written opinions. Toobin is exactly what one would expect from the liberal elite. Ignorance with a good vocabulary.

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-02-23 06:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

#19 Well when every liberal on the court decides your town can take your property and give it to another individual or corporation in order to sweeten property tax revenues, is anything wrong? C'mon, liberals, is anything wrong with that?

Don't like it either, but it's clearly constitutional.

#21 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-02-23 07:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Your partisan slip is really showing, LOL."

Maybe but you still don't seem to mind when the foreign money flows for your guys do you? And yet you call me partisan. If it's wrong, and it most certainly is, it's wrong for everyone.

"The Court said prohibiting free speech at a certain time during an election violates the constitution."

And then went way out on a totally unrelated tangent and opened the doors to unlimited corporate money flowing into elections from superpacs as long as they don't coordinate with candidates.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-23 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

And then went way out on a totally unrelated tangent...

So, you think we should restrict speech according to the identity or volume of the speaker?

What has the legislature done to regulate that effect of the decision?

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-23 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't like the money in politics either, but to restrict it unreasonably IS a restriction of speech.
I think the only way to approach the problem is to completely prohibit foreign donations, including anonymous gift card online donations and require every single penny to be accounted for by source, with the candidate and campaign treasurer subject to felony charges if they knowingly violate the law. We must at least know exactly who is trying to buy influence.

#24 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-23 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Flag:

I don't like the money in politics either, but to restrict it unreasonably IS a restriction of speech.

#24 | Posted by Diablo

Only if you agree with the falacy that money is speech.

But the bigger falacy is that corporations are people.

People are held accountable for their actions and can be imprisoned so it keeps them from committing crimes. Corporations can not.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-23 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Do me a favor before posting such again. Look up limited liability corporations and the history of such.
You would have no investments or IRA had corporations not been invented in the first place to be treated as INDIVIDUALS in the eyes of the law.
No investment could take place without that doctrine. If it did not exist, the stock you own in Widget International could leave your home open to ransack via civil court if the company screwed up. The doctrine protects individuals more than corporations.

#26 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-23 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only if you agree with the falacy[sic] that money is speech.

And your fallacy? Focusing abstractly on a dollar bill rather than what is purchased with the money that is speech, i.e. advertising or, more specifically, a Hillary Clinton movie at issue in Citizens United.

But the bigger falacy[sic] is that corporations are people.

And your fallacy? That the question is whether corporation are people rather than what constitutional rights protect the entity. Fyi, some do some don't.

Another fallacy? That corporations are not held accountable for their actions.

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-23 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Money is free speech, my friend."

#28 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-02-23 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another fallacy? That corporations are not held accountable for their actions.

#27 | Posted by et_al

Right. We all know how a $100,000 fine will keep a corporation from committing a crime that will earn them $10 billion.

NOT.

Fines are not accountability. Jail is. Corporations can't go to jail.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-23 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

No investment could take place without that doctrine. If it did not exist, the stock you own in Widget International could leave your home open to ransack via civil court if the company screwed up.

#26 | Posted by Diablo

So you mean people would only invest in corporations that prove themselves to be responsible citizens?

Oh the horror.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-23 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So you mean people would only invest in corporations that prove themselves to be responsible citizens?"

Do you own stock, Speak? Do you have a pension deriving income from an investment fund?

In either case, were a corporation not an individual in the eyes of the law, the company in which you hold stock could see lawyers come after your home and assets in a civil suit against the company because you own stock.
That's what limited liability means. It protects you more than the corporation.

#31 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-24 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

In either case, were a corporation not an individual in the eyes of the law, the company in which you hold stock could see lawyers come after your home and assets in a civil suit against the company because you own stock.
That's what limited liability means. It protects you more than the corporation.

#31 | Posted by Diablo

So i repeat what I said earlier. People would be a lot more careful about where they invest their money because investing in crooked corporations would be a great risk to themselves, thereby providing motivation for corporations to not be crooked.

Why is it that republicans are so fond of accountability when it comes to the working class but not when it comes to investors or corporations?

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-24 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why is it that republicans are so fond of accountability when it comes to the working class but not when it comes to investors or corporations?

Same reason as the democrats. They depend on the money from them. Isn't that obvious?

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2014-02-24 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The sc is a fascist formality. They all come from the same school of thought that basically states that it is their providence to rule over the sheeple.

#34 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-24 01:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort