PDA

View Full Version : Justice Clarence Thomas (wow)




RP08
10-03-2007, 05:22 PM
OK, so I may be the black sheep just now getting to know about Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. I'm about 10 minutes into an interview on 60 Minutes from this past weekend. He's saying things like "No matter what the goal is, wrong is wrong and a man needs to stand on principal, even if it's over a penny." And, that he personally believes that the Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional and the issue should be handled at the states level. He seems like such an educated, level-headed, conservative intellect. Am I missing something about him? Can't wait to get through the rest of the interview but had to post because I saw the forum was back up.

RP08
10-03-2007, 05:33 PM
He's also the author of a new book called "My Grandfather's Son" honoring the man who raised him.

Tina
10-03-2007, 08:24 PM
just words, I've always thought he was guilty.

Wiserphil
10-03-2007, 08:52 PM
amazing interview. don't know too much about him, but i loved what he said. sounded like a true consevative. but the fact that bush senior nominated him makes me think something is fishy. but who knows may he is legit.

Peace

bbachtung
10-03-2007, 09:54 PM
He is a true believer in the 2nd and 10th Amendments (and the Constitution as a whole).

One of the best reads you'll have is Thomas' dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) (the California medical marijuana case), which includes the following:



Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

***

One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States . . . This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter.

ThePieSwindler
10-03-2007, 10:02 PM
John Roberts has been pretty good so far too , and hes a Bush appointee. Again, as Pat Buchanan has said, bush is good on a few issues (taxes, judges, health care), Kerry was right on nothing. Not that Bush isnt one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time (though my "worst" list is alot diferent from scholarly ones, seeing as i would have FDR and lincoln closer to the top, whereas they are considered the BEST among most scholars), but still, give props where props are due. Republicans, even neocons, tend to be better at picking judges than democrats.

Johncjackson
10-03-2007, 10:09 PM
IMHO, Thomas is easily the best Supreme Court Justice- as far as following the COnstitution. Far better than Scalia ( you know, "the white guy he takes his orders from").

To the best of my recollection, very few people believed Anita Hill. And even if she did tell the truth, he was hardly "guilty" of any actual crime. The whole smear circus was irrelevant and he handled himself well ( after he fired his handlers).

Now, I dont agree with him on every decision, but he's easily the closest.

Perry
10-03-2007, 10:27 PM
just words, I've always thought he was guilty.

Of stealing ladies panties?

RoyalTenenbaum
10-03-2007, 10:37 PM
Since this is a forum devoted to Ron Paul, it's worth pointing out that Thomas is the Justice who's jurisprudence is closest to Paul's. Originalist interpretation and application of the Constitution. Like Paul, he is sometimes viewed by "sophisticates" as someone who time has moved beyond. Even Scalia, who I like a lot, has made some peace with the administrative state, and takes a bit more of an accomodating stance to some of the extra-constitutional aspects of our governance. Thomas, hopefully, is the type of justice we would see appointed by President Paul.

As for Anita Hill, she flat out lied. Stood up, took the oath, and lied.

Kregener
10-03-2007, 10:42 PM
He was innocent. "They" tried to use a sub-par ex-employee to discredit a good man.

I am glad they failed.

RP08
10-03-2007, 10:50 PM
He was innocent. "They" tried to use a sub-par ex-employee to discredit a good man.

I am glad they failed.

From what I understand (please note that I have not studied this in-depth)... Anita Hill was using a heart-string-tugging story to influence her personal agenda on Federal protection for "pro-choice" abortion laws.

RP08
10-03-2007, 11:01 PM
Since this is a forum devoted to Ron Paul, it's worth pointing out that Thomas is the Justice who's jurisprudence is closest to Paul's. Originalist interpretation and application of the Constitution. Like Paul, he is sometimes viewed by "sophisticates" as someone who time has moved beyond. Even Scalia, who I like a lot, has made some peace with the administrative state, and takes a bit more of an accomodating stance to some of the extra-constitutional aspects of our governance. Thomas, hopefully, is the type of justice we would see appointed by President Paul.

As for Anita Hill, she flat out lied. Stood up, took the oath, and lied.


Knowing what little I know about him, if my current opinion of favor is a good one, it's good to know that President Paul wouldn't have to re-appoint him. He's in it until he lets go or he "gets fired".

This guy seems very well balanced and founded in the Constitution. I love how he states that his personal opinions don't matter. It's what's covered by the Constitution in which his interpretation matters. he's been a justice for 15 years. He seems widely respected and very well-liked by peers and subordinates alike. I'd be interested in hearing something actually negative about him because I've made bad personal judgement calls in the past, and don't want to do it again with something as important as this.

And, someone mentioned they think he was "guilty". I can only say that I'm personally very close to someone who has been falsely accused of something horrible, by someone with an agenda. The accusation alone has ruined his and his family's life for over a decade and still ongoing. America thought the Duke La Crosse players were guilty too for a while. If I had to call heads or tails on this particular accusation of an old man Supreme Court Justice talking dirty to an employee on business hours, sorry... I'm calling BS. Take the last $5 I have after donating everything else to RP's campaign, if I'm wrong. *heh*

fcofer
10-03-2007, 11:54 PM
...over such a random discussion, but I don't share everyone's enthusiasm for Thomas at all. In fact, I think he's one of the worst justices on the Court with respect to individual rights.

Although it seems that he respects the true meaning of the Commerce Clause, that is only because it's mostly liberal issues that have been brought before him. In cases involving, say, federal power to police drugs, Thomas is much more lacklustre on restricting the power of the federal government.

Thomas almost always sides with the state on any issue regarding violations of the Bill of Rights. Police aggression was never excessive, searches and seizures were never unreasonable, confessions were never coerced, warrants were never invalid. Perhaps worse, he is probably the biggest opponent of habeas corpus on the Court... his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is practically infamous. He was also a neoconservative cheerleader in the Hamdan case.

Note that I don't like Scalia much, either, but he gets huge props from me for his strong, principled and consistent defense of habeas corpus -- he puts the "liberal" justices to shame on that score. But Thomas just doesn't seem to care for individual rights.

It sucks that there is no Supreme Court justice who is both an originalist and who respects individual liberty; i.e., no libertarian justices.

Please don't wish for Ron Paul to appoint any Clarence Thomases anywhere! Seriously, I'd rather have Earl Warren again than another Thomas.

Bradley in DC
10-04-2007, 12:01 AM
John Roberts has been pretty good so far too , and hes a Bush appointee. Again, as Pat Buchanan has said, bush is good on a few issues (taxes, judges, health care), Kerry was right on nothing. Not that Bush isnt one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time (though my "worst" list is alot diferent from scholarly ones, seeing as i would have FDR and lincoln closer to the top, whereas they are considered the BEST among most scholars), but still, give props where props are due. Republicans, even neocons, tend to be better at picking judges than democrats.

add Nixon and Wilson and you have my top five worst too

RP08
10-04-2007, 09:14 AM
...over such a random discussion, but I don't share everyone's enthusiasm for Thomas at all. In fact, I think he's one of the worst justices on the Court with respect to individual rights.

Although it seems that he respects the true meaning of the Commerce Clause, that is only because it's mostly liberal issues that have been brought before him. In cases involving, say, federal power to police drugs, Thomas is much more lacklustre on restricting the power of the federal government.

Thomas almost always sides with the state on any issue regarding violations of the Bill of Rights. Police aggression was never excessive, searches and seizures were never unreasonable, confessions were never coerced, warrants were never invalid. Perhaps worse, he is probably the biggest opponent of habeas corpus on the Court... his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is practically infamous. He was also a neoconservative cheerleader in the Hamdan case.

Note that I don't like Scalia much, either, but he gets huge props from me for his strong, principled and consistent defense of habeas corpus -- he puts the "liberal" justices to shame on that score. But Thomas just doesn't seem to care for individual rights.

It sucks that there is no Supreme Court justice who is both an originalist and who respects individual liberty; i.e., no libertarian justices.

Please don't wish for Ron Paul to appoint any Clarence Thomases anywhere! Seriously, I'd rather have Earl Warren again than another Thomas.


Thanks for the post! I, obviously, need to know more about him. If such is true, perhaps I only got a glimpse of his better side.

I'm particularly jaded over the whole law-"enforcement" and judicial system in general, starting with beat cops and going all the way up the ladder to the S.C.

jmarinara
10-04-2007, 09:32 AM
just words, I've always thought he was guilty.

Guilty of what exactly? That BS sexual harassment charge?