The man likes a little cream in his coffee. So what?
Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas
by snowbird 76 Replies latest social current
-
-
RubaDub
He doesn't ask questions because he believes that lawyers operating at that level should be able to present their case without having to explain it.
Jeff ...
That may work in traffic court but when you are at that level, dealing with cases that can affect people in the entire country if not the entire world, I can't believe that a judge wouldn't have any questions beyond the arguments being presented.
I guess then the other 8 justices just don't understand what is going on in the during the oral arguments.
Rub a Dub
-
-
JeffT
Looks like the board ate my post. Here's the link, I won'd copy and paste this time.
Note that the plenary power agrument is being used to shoot down a republican initiative.
-
beksbks
Ps, if you had all that at hand why didn't you post it instead of just asserting that I'm wrong?
Jeff, I've been reading on this subject sporadically for years. Never mind being on the edge of my seat in Dec 2000 and eating it up as it unfolded. Last night, I didn't have anything "at hand". I was on my way to bed, and had no desire to start finding links and articles. This morning, I was looking for something simple and straightforward, I found that summary.
If you are still trying to claim that the Supreme Court decision was to hand it over to the Florida Legislature, ................I don't know what to say to you. That is almost the exact opposite of what actually happened. The State made a decision, that the SC walked right over. It's as if they had already decided the outcome, and were proceeding accordingly. They even projected the States position in some cases. That is why I call it treason. They essentially chose the President, over the law, the State, the People..........etc. etc. This was not about Constitutional law, which is their job, it was partisan ideology. Some on the Right agree that the decision was wrong, but do not see the motive as self serving. I do. Why was this decision not good enough to set precedent? Why is that specifically noted?
And since this discussion was really about Thomas, I will add his recent decision to allow Corporate interests to have almost unlimited influence in elections to his partisan ideology/treason. It's a simple fact that Conservatives are more inclined to deregulate and side with corporate interests than Liberals are. Thus another way of turning this country in the direction he and his fellows desire.
-
beksbks
Oh and I looked up your book today, and found this on Amazon. I doubt I will spend any time reading this. I did find a couple of collections of opinions from both sides, that look very interesting. I don't need "truth book" style interpretations of the "scriptures".
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. He devotes later chapters to other key cases culminating in modern issues such as same-sex marriage and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Like effective attorneys do, Levin packs in copious research material and delivers his points with tremendous vigor, excoriating the justices for instances where he feels strict constit utional constructivism gave way to biased interpretation. But Levin's definition of "activism" seems inconsistent. In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court declined to rule on a bill already passed by congress and signed by the president, but Levin, who thinks the bill violates the First Amendment, still accuses them of activism even when they were actually passive. To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe
From Publishers Weekly
The Supreme Court is speeding the country on the road to tyranny, according to this jeremiad from Levin, a conservative constitutional lawyer and radio talk show host. Levin argues that the Constitution is under siege by "judicial activists" obsessed with remaking America to reflect their personal political and moral philosophies. Liberal judges who view the Constitution as a document whose meaning evolves over time are at odds with the founding fathers' "clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be." "Activist judges," he says, "make, rather than interpret, the law." The author champions originalism, the conservative legal philosophy hinging on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution's text, and he contends that moving the judiciary back into the originalist fold could thwart the power grab by "radicals in robes." Levin traces trends in judicial activism through some of the Supreme Court's most famous cases, from Marbury v. Madison (1803), which enshrined the high court's power to weigh the constitutionality of presidential and congressional acts, to Roe v. Wade (1973). He also blasts affirmative action decisions, contending that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause should be sufficient to combat racial discrimination. Levin is an ardent advocate, but at times his strident tone gets in the way of objective analyses of the system's flaws. Would the founders be as "appalled" by the present-day Supreme Court as Levin is? That's impossible to say, but many likeminded critics are certain to be galvanized by this spirited "clarion call," which is bookended by raves from conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III.
-
JeffT
Beks, I never said that the supremes wanted to kick back to Florida. I said that is what Clarence Thomas thought should happen.
The State of Florida did not make a decision. The supreme court did. According to a plain reading of the Constitution, the state supreme court has no authority to do that.
Feel free not to read the book, reading the opinions of people you disagree with is a dangerous thing to do. As I said, I don't actually like Levin.
-
mindmelda
The laws on sexual harassment are so strict and emcompassing that most men are guilty of it...mentally. LOL
As long as you keep your fantasies to yourself, no one cares,I sure don't. I once worked at a mill where I was one of two women who worked with over 200 men.
I got sexually harassed every day, nearly, for the first month I was there, some sort of "hazing" I guess, to see how tough I was, which is pretty much the case when you invade any new group. I didn't report it, because it was mild crap, for the most part. I handled it by finding out the names of the wives or mothers of every guy who said something sexually disgusting to me and I told them I'd call their wife or mother and tell them what they said if they kept doing it.
It pretty much stopped for me. (One guy asked me if I'd really do that, and I just smiled at him and recited his wife's name and telephone number and said, "You bet D____...I'll put her fucking speed dial if I need to"... this guys' wife was on the school board, so I really had the goods on him. LOL)
The other woman I worked with reported them all to her father, who was a shift supervisor and he did exactly shit about it, because it's a fricking men's club and he wasn't going to rat anyone out! They never stopped harassing the other woman, and she finally quit.
But, I got along with everyone famously after I told them what I was going to do if they didn't knock it the hell off, I think they respected that a lot more than me whining about their little potty mouth pranks to the supervisor. Sometimes, it's just better to take care of shit yourself, you know?
-
mrsjones5
But, I got along with everyone famously after I told them what I was going to do if they didn't knock it the hell off, I think they respected that a lot more than me whining about their little potty mouth pranks to the supervisor. Sometimes, it's just better to take care of shit yourself, you know?
Ya got that right sista
-
beksbks
Feel free not to read the book, reading the opinions of people you disagree with is a dangerous thing to do. As I said, I don't actually like Levin.
I'm happy to read the opinions of people who disagree with me. As I said above
I did find a couple of collections of opinions from both sides, that look very interesting.
What I am not interested in is reading someone with an obvious agenda who wants to interpret facts for me. I can chew my own food thanks.
We are not connecting on the particulars of the case in question. I may be misunderstanding your point, but it appears as though you are overlooking the facts of the case.
Edited to add: I see now where we are at odds. I'm not actually talking about the outcome of this case, or other aspects of law that might have effected it. I'm focusing on the behavior of the Supreme Court. What they did and the decision they handed down, was wrong. There is very little argument on either side to that. There is a difference of opinion on what thier motivation was.