Thomas attacks Stevens in Hamdan opinion.
By on Jun 29th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Thomas attacks Stevens in Hamdan opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas refers to Justice John Paul Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare” in his dissenting opinion. ACSBlog notes: “Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Clarence Thomas has years of military experience fighting for the renewal of the Old Confederacy.
Indeed, he is a warrior in Jefferson Davis’ ghost army.
-GSD
June 29th, 2006 at 8:51 pmthat would be like stevens accusing Thomas of being unfamiliar with porn
June 29th, 2006 at 8:52 pmClarence may not have had traditional military experience, but he sure did try his damndest to deploy his ballistic missile into my silo.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:56 pmClarence Thomas gave exactly the dissent I expected from him.
They continue to display Emerson’s “foolish consistency.”
June 29th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThe obvious would be to say that Stevens should argue with Thomas about what it’s like to be black, except that Thomas really doesn’t know.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:01 pmYou would think that Thomas would be embarrassed, what with his never even been in uniform, but a sociopath will never be embarrassed. They don’t know the definition of the word.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pmThomas knows all about warfare .. didn’t you see those shots he took during the rape hearing.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:11 pmAnita Hill jokes aside, does anyone else find it odd that in all the years Thomas has been a SC justice, this is the first time I can remember him saying much about anything at all?
June 29th, 2006 at 9:14 pmYa know ?
June 29th, 2006 at 9:18 pmI am not sure what Clarabell knows about war, I know a little, I was there when we shot down several VC 30 years ago. There were those among us who wated to kill them after they had been shot down and were still alive. A scuffle eraupted among us, whether those enemy lived after being flown out, I dont know, but I do know that to have murdered them after critcally wounding them is the stuff “dreams” are made of.
What I hope for is that a justice knows the law and applies it.
If we do not act within law, then we are no different than those who kill men women and children without regard?
#8
June 29th, 2006 at 9:24 pmI think Clarence Thomas focuses too much on the great naps he’ll have whilst the plaintiff argues his/her case.
In fact, that might explain the reason he idiotically attacked Stevens for not knowing what warfare was like.
Come on Pervert Thomas decides to have an opinion. Pervert coded morals you fool.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:24 pmZen: “this is the first time I can remember him (Thomas) saying much about anything at all?” – - Only the second time in 15 years he has voiced his opinion.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pmThis fits right in with all of the chicken hawk righties that come her and try and tell those of us that have served how much they know about military strategy.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:43 pm#8 That’s because the lawyers at the WH wrote the opinion for him and told him to read it on the bench.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:46 pmNot only did Stevens serve, according to his Wikipedia entry he won a Bronze star:
After serving in the United States Navy from 1942 to 1945 as an intelligence officer (for which service he was awarded a Bronze Star),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
Seems like it’s mandatory that service star winners are attacked by Republicans without military service.
Argh
June 29th, 2006 at 9:46 pmHe got the call from cheney. . . .
June 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pmGovernment of the chickenhawks, and by the chickenhawks, and for the chickenhawks.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:47 pmYeah, but WWII wasn’t like a REAL war or anything. Not like our glorious crusade against the Islamocommies!
June 29th, 2006 at 10:08 pmimprovised pubic placement, IPP, is a type of warfare skill, no?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:14 pm#3 Comment by Anita Hill — June 29, 2006 @ 8:56 pm
good belly laugh from that one! …still smilin’!
June 29th, 2006 at 10:15 pmIt’s just a damn shame Thomas is unfamiliar with the realities of the Constitution.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:16 pmYou got there first, katy. Excellent, Anita…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:17 pmYou’re right, Dr Sinker. Thomas should be embarassed by himself, but I don’t think he’s capable of the feeling.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:20 pmhey, zoo! still smilin’!
have been catching up with news and posts… Whew!
you’re right – a good day for US!
off to walk the doggy, then it’s time for jon, then stephen,
a little dave, then zzzzzzz….
“talk” to ya tomorrow! g’nite all…
June 29th, 2006 at 10:24 pmOne reality with which Thomas needs to gain a llittle familiarity is that the laws regarding conduct during time of war are in force during time of war; they may not be disregarded, even by the President, just because, yanno, “we’re at war”.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:29 pmww II was a real war, stevens was a lawyer in philadelphia and fought all sorts of disordely conduct problems.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:36 pmClarence Thomas is a prick.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:53 pmDoes anybody else remember the old comedy sketch show (ABC?) from way back “Fridays”? Do you remember the Michael Richards sketches with the kid playing with all the toy soldiers in his backyard? Everytime one of these chickenhawks talks about the “realities of war”, that’s what I think of… that little kid Michael Richards character playing with toy soldiers in his back yard.
i guess you’ve got to be at least over thirty five to remember that one though.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:58 pmHypocracy Patrol is a dildo.. in case u dont know what that is, its worse than a prick. If all u can do is call people names, u have a serious problem. What gives u the right to call someone your nickname?
June 29th, 2006 at 10:59 pmGrow up umbra, your lame trolling is…well…lame.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:11 pmClarence Thomas…
…creating reality since…
…he became the FIRST repulsivescum lawn jockey…
…who was miraculously turned into a real BOY…
June 29th, 2006 at 11:11 pmJustice Thomas has always been an extreme far-right GOP stooge, so is Alito and Scalia!
June 29th, 2006 at 11:48 pmChief Justice Roberts is the surprise in the court, because he is standing up to the Bush Regime on some court issues > I bet Dubya Dunce Decider is very mad about him now!
[...] I admit that as a black man, the likes of Clarence Thomas embarasses the hell out of me. But he made it even worse by attacking Justice Stevens for supposed unfamiliarity with military combat when in fact Stevens served in WWII while the closest Thomas has probably gotten is a rental of some porn knockoff of Saving Private Ryan. [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 1:16 am#2 ROFL
For the record:
June 30th, 2006 at 1:20 am
[...] Other takes: SCOTUS blog (also here), Greenwald, Balkin, ACSBlog, Unspeak (on Scalia’s typically hypocritical and contradictory dissent), ThinkProgress (more on Thomas the chickenhawk’s ad hominem attacks on veteran Stevens) [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:16 amThe Reich-wing wants more Justices on the Court in the Thomas-Scalia mould.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:35 amAnother chickenhawk to the rescue of Bush attacks on democracy. Where is Scalia’s hands when Thomas’ mouth moves?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:44 amThomas is mad Stevens doesn’t leave DNA on coke cans
June 30th, 2006 at 4:17 am#21; good post.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:51 amWhat an ass. Faith in the President’s judgement, right. We no longer have a President but a King of tyranny.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:29 amNo they’re Swift-Boating a Supreme Court Justice? They’ll attack just about anybody. The lying —tard.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
June 30th, 2006 at 7:59 amNew SSA: Editorial – Only on SSA
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
1. Pubic Hairs.
2. Coke cans.
The Thomas legacy.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:06 am“One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, “Who has pubic hair on my Coke?” On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.
This is the wise and insightful Thomas, Judge on the highest court in the world-
June 30th, 2006 at 8:12 am#32 – John Roberts is more conservative than Alito, asshole.
The announcement should be happening any minute now.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:38 amAlito or Thomas or Scalia would not have recused, asshole.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:40 amStevens is a disgrace. He basically ruled for the terrorists. I hope you feel the wrath of this decision. Then, conservatives and say – hey, this is what you wanted. You wanted to free the terrorists.
Why does the radical left hate our way of life so much. If Terrorists ever have the hand of power in this country, you would be the first lot they would kill. Conservatives are just protecting idiotic liberals from themselves. We’ve been doing it for about thirty years now.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:41 am46 Terror
June 30th, 2006 at 8:47 amCome back when you can describe “our way of life” without referring to the freedoms and values guaranteed by the Constitution. Bye, now.
Yeah, but you know what? When the terrorists have you really spooked you can come stay at my place. I’ll show you how to not be scared. I’ll take care of you.
Besides, afew thousand deaths in America doesn’t effect the overall homicide numbers. See how that works? That’s the “It’s safer in Iraq than DC” argument. How do you like those apples you little scardy cat.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:48 amTSL: don’t fear, in your country doesn’t exists a true left party, only Right-lite Democrats and Right-hard Republicans.
Yeah, almost 30 years now from the Ollie North’s Iran-Contra scandal. You remember? Using from drugs to buy weapons for Iran? Wasn’t that in the watch of (R) R.Reagan? And done by the same CIA that gave your flimsy evidency to Iraq WMD? That money has payed the modern centrifugues and weapons programs of Iran. Wow, what a great protection the Republicans gave to the USA people. Arming the next great enemy of the USA.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:48 amI like Toes’ comment. Do these clowns ever go against the grain of their political party and class?
June 30th, 2006 at 8:49 amStevens just doesn’t have alot of sympathy for scared Neocons. It’s quite a conservative stance, don’tcha think?
June 30th, 2006 at 8:50 amStevens is a disgrace. He basically ruled for the terrorists. I hope you feel the wrath of this decision. Then, conservatives and say – hey, this is what you wanted. You wanted to free the terrorists.
Why does the radical left hate our way of life so much. If Terrorists ever have the hand of power in this country, you would be the first lot they would kill. Conservatives are just protecting idiotic liberals from themselves. We’ve been doing it for about thirty years now.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 30, 2006 @ 8:41 am
The Conservatives didn’t do such a great job of protecting us on 9-11, and in fact have marginalized our allies and created more terrorists than have ever existed in the history of mankind; way to GO!
BTW if you were actually studying the decision instead of watching Fox, you would know that this is no way frees the ‘freedomhaters’.
If that’s the Conservatives protecting us, I would hate to see what would happen if you didn’t care.
Oh and I really can’t fathom how you feel that international law NEVER applies to the USA, so let’s crank up some Toby Keith and blow some stuff up!
June 30th, 2006 at 8:52 amWhat do you expect, Justice Uncle Thomas got his job in plantation house by kissing up to his fascist massa.
and to TSL, I take care of myself right wing chickenhawk GIRL. Protect me daddy, protect me daddy is for the cowardly right. Real MEN don’t buy that candyass fear-propaganda of the right. Now get back to ducttaping your safe room. HAHAHAHAAA!
June 30th, 2006 at 8:53 amonthefence: I know that we’ve had a couple fights, but I really agree with all you said in your post. Glad to see that really you’re in the fence, and not past the fence :)
June 30th, 2006 at 8:57 amWe are a nation at war.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:57 amThat’s why 99% of all able bodied men are safely at home working at Jack in the Box and Sonic.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:59 amontheface, mabye if you’re President wasn’t getting bjs from fat interns, we could have been Bin Laden in 1998.
Democrats and Liberals heart terrorists.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:00 am55 Terror
June 30th, 2006 at 9:03 amSo? Does that mean we should give the president all the power he wants to do anything he wants? And is it really “hard work” to do things by the Constitution, like get court orders, have Congressional oversight, give detainees a fair hearing to determine how they should be treated, ensuring fair elections in this country, etc? Without the Constitution what kind of nation are we, at war or in peace? Again, come back when you can describe “our way of life”.
Ah! TSL is a Rushbot! Don’tcha have some frogs to blow up with firecrackers or something?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:03 ambad news for america = good news for the libs
June 30th, 2006 at 9:04 amBesides, it’s pretty much common knowledge that Cheney was pulling resources from Tora Bora when they had OBL cornered.
Why did they do that?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:05 am“Libs” will never be the fall guys for lack of human intelligence in terrorist organizations.
“Libs” fought McCarthy, and somehow America survived.
“Libs” ended the Nam war, America survived.
“Libs” aren’t the problem. What an embarrassing thing to imply.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:10 amWe are a nation at war.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 30, 2006 @ 8:57 am
Please define war to me, since that’s your blanket excuse for everything Bush does. Define the word. Has war been declared by Congress? No.
So if you want a war, let’s have one, start rationing gasoline, institute the draft, and raise some taxes to pay for it. You know the other day I believe an old war tax on telephone calls was rescinded, you know what war that was enacted for? The Spanish-American War….that’s right!
Kinda of strange that we raised taxes to pay for a very small, relatively inexpensive war but we are actually cutting taxes when trying to fight what arguably might be the most expensive military action in our history(IRAQ).
This isn’t a war, it’s a metaphor.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:11 amYeah, but onthefence?
“Who has pubic hair on my Coke?â€
June 30th, 2006 at 9:13 am1: Congress hasn’t declared it so technically, no, you are not a nation at war.
2: Even if one accepts America being a nation of war, this does not change the wording of the Constitution which does NOT under Article 2 give Bush dictatorial powers, or the power to circumvent the rest of the law. Indeed, the power it does give him is to take command of America’s armed forces, not to circumvent the laws that govern those forces.
3: The Geneva Convention is basically a set of rules, intended for war time. Being a nation at war does not exempt you from obeying the convention, which entered into force in 1950.
And maybe if Bush didn’t imediatly go on leave after winning the 2001 elections 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Maybe if he actually paid any attention to any of the information left behind by Clinton 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Maybe if he had paid any attention to the rest of the warnings that were being screamed at him by Israel and Russia before 9/11, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. You favourite President has spent more time on leave, then any president before him. And don’t try to bullshit me about “He just out of Texas” because during Katrina, knows what he was doing but it wasn’t work.
Clinton’s five minutes of relaxation makes Clinton look like a workaholic compared to Bush’s two months a year.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:16 amOperation Yellow Elephant continues…
June 30th, 2006 at 9:18 amThere is no shortage of arrogance in Clarence Thomas. For a man who must have seen oppressive bigotry in his lifetime, his attitude is so typical of Repugnican feelings of superiority.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:42 amWhy not split the US in two parts? There will be no geographical split, people can stay where they are. They just have choose if they want to be citizens of the Neo-Con republic (with Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) or of the Democratic republic. :)
June 30th, 2006 at 9:44 amThe smackdown of King George…
Call it a liberal fantasy if you want, but the Supreme Court’s legal smackdown of the Bush White House’s monarchical terror “war” was the first real hint of the return of oversight and sanity in at least some quarters of American government and jur…
June 30th, 2006 at 10:01 am60 janitor
June 30th, 2006 at 10:09 amWhat bad news is “good for libs”? You stated elsewhere that your statement is fact. Prove it. IMO Bush “won” the last election by feeding on “bad news” and fear. Try to convince me that bad news is the libs domain.
Hey Clarence, shut up and drink your can of coke. Let’s hope that Justice Stevens left something nice on your can.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:40 amCOMING SOON IN AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AD…
Well, here you have Nancy Pelosi saying the decision was not only a “triumph” but that “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.”
(in the background, there will be visions of the South Tower being hit and people screaming and yelling!!!) Then, the narrator will ask – DO we really want to give people like Muhammad Atta basic guarantees of our justice system? Well, we know Democrats do.
YOU FUCKING IDIOTS are going to get plowed come November. Thank you for your ignorance!!
June 30th, 2006 at 11:33 am#33–I believe the film you’re referring to is “Shaving Ryan’s Privates”
June 30th, 2006 at 11:40 amPost 73 > go post your fascist drivil at RedState.com you silly dumb fool!
June 30th, 2006 at 11:44 amBecause if we had captured Osama bin Laden, the impetus for going to war against Iraq would have greatly diminished. Many people would have thought the “mission accomplished” with the capture and trial of the man allegedly responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
TSL supports a Dictator, in the name of safety. S/he does not yet realize that a Dictator must perpetually make you feel unsafe, so that He may deprive you of civil liberties and remain in control and power.
TSL, the real terrorists are the ones in the Administration. They have been responsible for far more death and destruction than the Saudis on 9/11.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pmI have finally figured out why so many Republicans are pro war.
They are not just chicken hawks. They are chicken shits.
Not having any experience themselves with actual military service, they magnifiy the “boogy man” factor of what they imagine is an omnipotent enemy to the point of hysteria, then want someone (”Daaaaadyy!!!!”) to make the monster go away–even if it means they lose all that we stand for as a country. At least then THEY will be safe, and that’s all that matters. They call to mind the “pooping in their pants” cowards pushing ahead of the women and children in order to get into the lifeboats during the sinking of the Titanic.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:24 pmThomas cracks me up because I have always called him Scalias shadow because he votes with Scalia more often than any other two judges vote together. The few times they have voted differently have been very scattered. However a couple were noteworthy, especially in light of the whole Anita Hill thing. About three or four years ago Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority affirming the rights of some pornography issue. Either distribution, or production, I’m not certain. About a year later in a similar case Thomas also wrote the majority opinion and was on the opposite side of Scalia once more.
#46, the left hates our way of life? If that is the case, why are republicans attempting to change everything in this country? Seems to me that if the republicans love our way of life as much as they claim to, they would be all for preserving it, yet every move they make is designed to tear down some fabric of our society that they don’t like, which is just about everything.
I’m impressed it took the wrong wingers 57 posts to bring Clinton into the argument. They must be getting the message that he has been out of office for 6 years now and that things are worse today than they were six years ago.
Also anyone who thinks this ruling will change anything is absolutely deluding themselves. Remember the president believes, and his faithful fully support the notion that whatever the president does in prosecuting the war on terror is legal. Thus far he has shown that he will ignore the will of the people (remember “We the people in order to form a more perfect union…?) he has flaunted the will of congress by pretty much ignoring oversight and laws they pass, he has re-written the constitution, and he has already ignored the courts on their decisions, so why would this one be any different to him or his minions? He has done what he wanted to when he wanted regardless of the law and he will continue to do so.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:40 pmSomeone should remind Justice Thomas that he is a supreme court justice, and not a Bush supporter. This was a legal decision and not a political decision, which it seems is what Justice Thomas wanted. He is in lock step with his mentor Justice Scalia. It reminds me of an old army joke “If Justice Scalis makes a sharp right turn Justice Thomas will end up with a broken nose”
June 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pmIt seems to me only common sense to ignore what someone says if they know nothing about the subject they’re talking about.If you want medical advice do you ask your plumber?If someone has zero military experience (most of our congressional chickenhawks) then just ignore what they say.I’m not a Democrat, but i’d take Murthas military comments over Cheney’s any day. The same goes for the Supreme Court.On military matters, Stevens trumps Thomas 7 days a week.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI graduated from college in the spring of 1970 into the teeth or Richard Nixon’s draft lottery. So did Thomas, who, like me, was born in 1948. His number was 109, a “bad” low number which guaranteed he would be drafted. But like many in those days, Thomas had a friendly doctor who got him a medical “out.” In his case, the weight-lifting, flag-football playing Thomas beat the draft thanks to “curvature of the spine,” the so-called “no-backbone out.” One of the great lost opportunities of recent years occurred during his confirmation hearings, when not one single question was asked by the incompetent Democrats, led by then committee chairman Joe Biden, about Thomas history of draft-dodging or his opinions on such things as undeclared wars. It was the first, and so far only time, that a conservative who had to deal with the draft could have been forced to truthfully answer questions about both the legalities of war and the draft as well as his own personal conduct. But no, Biden & Co. were too busy focusing on pubic hairs on Coke cans.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:18 pmClarence Thomas and Danny Quayle are prime examples of the senior Bush’s failure to pick the “best man for the job”. Sonny has followed in his footsteps to a degree unparalleled in human history.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pmJudge Clarabelle, better known as Long Dong Silver has got a nose that’s magic and a pushcart loaded with fun!
June 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pm[...] Thank you thinkprogress. Comments » [...]
June 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pmI hope you feel the wrath of this decision. Then, conservatives and say – hey, this is what you wanted. You wanted to free the terrorists.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left #46
Tater,
…You TREASONOUS heathen bi*ch…
…that curse is reserved for you right wing hypocritical Bushite TRAITORS…
…who CREATED these “terrorists” in the first place…
…you (and everyone like you who blindly follow the cowards and crooks in the criminal Bushite junta)…
…are an abomination to humankind…
…it’s YOU who deserve to “feel the wrath”…
June 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pmI have a giant poster of Hitler over my bed, and I like to undress my George W. Bush flightsuit doll and play with him regularly.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:09 pm[...] But if that weren’t enough, though 5 justices agreed on the opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas saw fit to actually read the beginning of his dissention from the bench. It must have really burned him that even if Chief Justice Roberts would not have had to recuse himself, they still would’ve been dissenting opinion. But as ThinkProgress duly notes, Thomas has again placed his foot in his mouth. Justice Clarence Thomas refers to Justice John Paul Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare†in his dissenting opinion. ACSBlog notes: “Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.†[...]
June 30th, 2006 at 5:19 pm” If Terrorists ever have the hand of power in this country…”
Does this pathetic moron actually think that the US in danger of being taken over and governed by Islamic fundamentalists? What an idiot. You probably think Afghanistan is right next to Cuba, don’t you, dumbshit?
June 30th, 2006 at 5:33 pmAll of these arm chair quarterback / chicken hawks are questioning the credibility of those who served – DOESN’T ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?
As I remember the rap on Clarence Thomas was that he was unqualified – not hard to believe.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pmClarence Thomas has shown he is a right wing ideolouge first, and a Supreme Court Justice second, he along with Scalia and Alito have given the hard right zealots 3 sure votes on everything that comes before them, despite what the law implies. Thomas is just being a Republican when he disparages someone who has seen combat, while he never has, its called being a “Chickenhawk”.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:01 pmWhen a dissent is being drafted, the others joining in the dissent are agreeing to it in all particulars, unless they issue a separate dissent that indicates that they agree in part and disagree in part.
Those joining in this dissent had opportunity to read the final draft, did not object to the characterization at issue here, etc.
They are just as implicated as is Thomas, if not more so (because he is stupid and they are not).
June 30th, 2006 at 10:32 pmHizzoner’s lack of military experience ties in with the folks who started this war. They can meet at Graceland next year and cut up old touches.
July 1st, 2006 at 11:20 amDoes a Supreme Court Justice need truth on his side when he criticizes a fellow Justice? Apparently NOT!!!! HHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
July 1st, 2006 at 11:30 amSore loser or blatant liar? HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Maybe both, eh? :)
Very likely the single most cynical appointment in the history of Supreme Court appointments was George Herbert Walker Bush’s naming of that self-hating embarrassment to his race, Clarence Thomas, as Thurgood Marshall’s replacement! But then what else would one expect from that vile collection known as the Bush Family as they pursue dynastic immortality while contributing nothing selfless to this country and humanity in general even though possessing both the power and wealth to do so?
July 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pmNorman Weinstein
NYC
From the Thomas dissent:
“…As an initial matter, the plurality relies upon the date of the AUMF’s enactment to determine the beginning point for the “period of the war,” Winthrop 836, thereby suggesting that petitioner’s commission does not have jurisdiction to try him for offenses committed prior to the AUMF’s enactment. Ante, at 34 36, 48. But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents. The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities…”
Thomas in fact makes no direct mention of Stevens, as the distorted quote would lead you to believe. He is referring, obviously, to the collective legal wisdom of Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter et al with regard to this example of military law.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmToo Much Exposure to Conservatives Gives Me Heartb…
Seriously, I’m getting an ulcer over here. Can we put a kybosh on linking to examples of conservative dumbassery?
July 11th, 2006 at 8:35 pmIt is not my fault that there is a huge demographic with no understanding of history, rhetoric, art, literature, science, war, gende ……