Comments on: Thomas attacks Stevens in Hamdan opinion.

By: Is there no sin in it?

Is there no sin in it? — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:35:31 +0000

Too 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?
It is not my fault that there is a huge demographic with no understanding of history, rhetoric, art, literature, science, war, gende ……

By: Mike2

Mike2 — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:34:33 +0000

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.

By: Norman Weinstein

Norman Weinstein — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:30:02 +0000

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?
Norman Weinstein
NYC

By: Solitaire

Solitaire — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:30:11 +0000

Does a Supreme Court Justice need truth on his side when he criticizes a fellow Justice? Apparently NOT!!!! HHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sore loser or blatant liar? HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Maybe both, eh? :)

By: darby1936

darby1936 — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:20:36 +0000

Hizzoner’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.

By: andrewg

andrewg — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:32:45 +0000

When 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).

By: maxdee55

maxdee55 — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:01:01 +0000

Clarence 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”.

By: nofltwlt

nofltwlt — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:24:55 +0000

All 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.

By: Diddley

Diddley — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:33:00 +0000

” 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?

By: The Smirking Cynic » The Ignorant

The Smirking Cynic » The Ignorant — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:19:08 +0000

[...] 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 Stevensâ€™ â€œunfamiliarity with the realities of warfareâ€ in his dissenting opinion. ACSBlog notes: â€œStevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomasâ€™s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.â€ [...]

By: Terror Sympathizing Left

Terror Sympathizing Left — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:09:23 +0000

I 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.

By: big papa

big papa — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:42:54 +0000

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.

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”…

By: romunov’s blog et al :: Thomas is a riot :: June :: 2006

romunov’s blog et al :: Thomas is a riot :: June :: 2006 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:38:22 +0000

[...] Thank you thinkprogress. Comments » [...]

By: Weniger Gottquatsch

Weniger Gottquatsch — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:45:44 +0000

Judge Clarabelle, better known as Long Dong Silver has got a nose that’s magic and a pushcart loaded with fun!

By: WaltTheMan

WaltTheMan — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:38:09 +0000

Clarence 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.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:18:10 +0000

I 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.

By: KEN

KEN — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:57:12 +0000

It 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.

By: Bill Ash

Bill Ash — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:50:38 +0000

Someone 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”

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:40:46 +0000

Thomas 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 unionâ€¦?) 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.

By: dolgre

dolgre — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:24:00 +0000

I 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.