Clarence Thomas: ‘My colleagues should shut up!’
By on Nov 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Clarence Thomas: ‘My colleagues should shut up!’
In a “rare scolding of his fellow judges,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended his silence on the bench. “My colleagues should shut up!” he said. “I think that they should ask questions, but I don’t think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary.”
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
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
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
Hey, Incurious Clarence. Somebody touch a nerve…?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pmWhy in the world is this man so bitter and angry? He is such an unpleasant person — have you ever seen a picture of him smiling?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth (as Mr. Thomas just did)* and remove all doubt.” Abraham Lincoln
* addition mine
November 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pmIf you read his full comments, they make a lot of sense.
…said one raving lunatic, sychophant to another.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmthink someday we could begin impeachment proceedings against those SCJ that unconstitutionally selected this corrupt administration?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmDidn’t Jefferson impeach SCJ’s?
re # 3
Right coldhardleft,
he makes a lot of sense there… The fact that he doesnt’ understand the difference between galbladder surgery, which is a pretty established practice and process and an intellectual arugment involving issues of logic and the interpretation of the written word is only overshadowed by his lack of understanding about the differences in urgency involved in, in one case, having a person lying on a table with his lower torso cut open and his internal organs sitting on a metal tray and with each tick of the clock the person heads closer to death, and in the other case, a group of adults presenting their best case for a particular point of view to another group of people who will, in the end, make an informed decision that will influence untold people’s lives for the foreseeable future.
I can see why someone of your advanced intellectual ablities would think that clarence makes sense….
November 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm“I think that they should ask questions, but I don’t think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary,” he said. “You don’t have to ask all those questions to judge properly.”
That’s why this court has set a record for split decisions. The republican Supremes already know what their ideology dictates, so there’s no reason to debate. How many decisions has Thomas been party to that didn’t toe the conservative line, other than Bush v. Gore, which stood juriprudence, and the so-called conservative respect for the rule of law on their respective heads?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmon the other hand, if this means that scallia would shut up…
November 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pmIf you read his full comments, they don’t make a bit of sense.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pmOf course, one doesn’t need to ask questions if one’s mind is already made up.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pmThomas: “I have built a career on making decisions without understanding the facts. Anyone can do it.”
November 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pmre 12,
If you really did present an oral argument to a Circut Court you should know better. Do you really think that presenting an oral argument in court is the same as preforming sugery? On the whole, it’s better to have too much disucssion than not enough, setting aside the fact that you’re imposing your judgement on what is enough discussion. If a judge has a question, he or she should ask it.
Given your republican genuflecting it’s more likely you have presented oral arguments in the men’s room in the Minnieapolis airport to larry craig.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:45 pmOne can’t help but notice that coldhardleft doesn’t explain why too many questions is a bad thing, he just claims it is so. me must be a great lawyer.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pmHey, Cold Hard, the Supreme Court lost its precious independence and forever tarnished its name with its overtly-political hit on
Al Gore.
And what did it get us? Are you proud of what our country has become? Are you thrilled when you see the incredible National Debt, almost ALL of which happened under Reagan, Bush, and Bush?
The self-hating Clarence Thomas is just another example of what passes for “conservative” thought today. We used to call it Fascism.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmRe 13.
The Supreme Court interfered in a constitutional process. There is a process for deciding disupted presidential elections. it involves a trial in the house of representitives. they had no business injecting their partisan opinions in that case, and anyone with any knowledge of the law knows that.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmWhen I see Clarence Thomas, I really understand what we lost in the death of Thurgood Marshall.
Marshall’s wisdom and humanity shines in contrast to the dark shadow of Silent Clarence (unless he’s complaining). Marshall had an inherent goodness, and was a likable guy.
Not even Thomas likes Clarence Thomas.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pmHe’s right. A hollowed out partisan toady bilge-rat really doesn’t need to say much.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pmSorry cold hard left,
I owe you an apology concerning your post 13. I jumped your case when you were just pointing out a case where the supreme court should have just shut up, right?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:55 pmme must be a great lawyer.
Comment by Bobwurst — November 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
He watches a lot of Law & Order.
That’s all it takes…..ask Fred.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pmIt looks like clarence called cold hard left and told him to shut up.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:01 pmSome questions indeed should not be asked from the Bench. “Is that a pubic hair on my coke? ” for example.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:06 pmBush v. Gore (Gore v. Bush) was correctly decided on Equal Protection grounds. The Democrats chose the wrong strategy and the wrong argument by trying to only recount in those counties where they thought they might pick up votes, rather than seeking to re-count all of the votes.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
untrue, and you know it.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmRe: 12
Aren’t you presuming to know what Mr. Thomas meant?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pmClarence Thomas — always a class act. Always.
“Oh yeah? Well, YOU shut up!”
November 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm… and he went to law school where?!?!?
Look, Clarence, you dumb sh*t, if you folks don’t want to schedule
oral args, you don’t have to. You are perfectly free to decide a case on the briefs alone.
Maybe not everyone thinks that probing the logic of the advocates is all that much a waste of time. After all, the parties put in the briefs what they want to discuss, and they leave out or gloss over the stuff that they’d rather not emphasize (if that).
In European courts, the judges are even more inquisitorial, asking questions of the witnesses even, and these countries haven’t imploded.
Let’s be honest, Clarence: You don’t like oral argument because you don’t want to show for all the world to see that you’re the stoopid eedjit you are (like “forgetting” the rationale on the one of the landmark cases [BSA v. Dale] from the prior term, an opinion to which you signed on….)
Cheers,
November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm#13 cold_hard_left:
Bush v. Gore (Gore v. Bush) was correctly decided on Equal Protection grounds.
Oh, really?!?!?
Why did Rehnquist et al. suddenly decide that if your last name is Dubya, you can yell “equal protection” without any demonstration of actual discrimination or invidious intent at all and get in the door, while if you’re black, even persuasive statistical evidence of discriminatory effect is ignored?
For that matter, given the RW’s usual reticence on “standing”, how did Dubya even get in the door, since he’s not a Florida voter and has no grounds to complain about his vote being diluted?
As for “equal protection”, how’s it that the “remedy” that was dictated by the majority caused the very “equal protection” violation they claimed to be so concerned about? You know, the results that the majority dictated be left stand included manual counts from some counties, and only machine counts from others, while the state-wide recount that they stopped would have counted all the ballots manually….
Go on, now, tell us, outside of establishing new precedent for “standing” and proof in “equal protection” claims (unless you read the dicta in the opinion that this case can’t ever be followed again), how was this a victory for “equal protection” rather than a travesty of a violation of such?
Cheers,
November 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pmI’m wondering what’s going on here.
For years and years, Thomas, clearly way out of his depth as a jurist, has clung to Scalia, steadfastly took the hardest right position possible, cashed his check and gone home. What more does he want? Chief justice? Over Fat Tony?
But lately–the book and the book tour. A sitting justice on a book tour?And revisiting his appointment hearings? And, it seems, more grouchy pronouncements. Why the publicity grabbing? Why the palpable dissatisfaction?
Here’s a guess: Roberts and Alito. Two ideological allies of Scalia’s and, therefore, his.A conservative bloc. A team.
But suppose they don’t like him? Suppose they don’t like him? Suppose they treat him like a cipher? Suppose it gets back to him that Roberts or Alito made a little comment about silent, inarticulaste, still-not-ready-for-prime-time Clarence Thomas? Suppose Tony is starting to spend lesstime with him and more with his new colleagues?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pmMemo to Clarence: Call Dr. Phil.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI dont think its my job to give you relief…but they should shut up.
Thanks for the comic relief Clarence.
And BTW why are they honoring Winston Churchill?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 pmMethinks Clarence is headed for the funny farm.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pmSounds like Clarence isn’t smart enough for the job.
Excellent posts by the way. Very intelligent folks on here.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am“correctly decided on Equal Protection grounds” – not according the the dissenting opinion on this highly controversial ruling. Ex, from Stevens: “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.†and the actual loser of this presidential election was “the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.â€
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amClarence Thomas sees dead people. He’s just upset because now Americans know he’s stupid and not qualified to be a Judge. Yes it’s eating at him that he can only vote the way he’s told because he doesn’t know anything. At lease he’ll make history by being the dumbest Judge who ever sit on the Supreme Court. A lesson for minority law students of what not to do as shown by Clarence Thomas and Al Gonzales. Earn and learn before you take the job. If anyone feels Clarence is attacking them all they have to say is boo or Anita Hill that will shut him up quick.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:30 amweirdo
November 30th, 2007 at 2:08 amIf you read his full comments, they make a lot of sense.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
No they don’t. And little of what you write makes sense, either.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:56 amThomas and CHL have something in common: both are embittered losers.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:57 amI don’t think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary.
Well, when you already have a predetermined mind set on how you will judge cases it really isn’t necessary to ask questions.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:18 amThomas is a walking argument against Affirmative Action.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:33 amThomas asks no questions because he is stupid and his mind is already made up.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:26 amWhat’s that on your Pepsi can, Clarence? Ooops, too many questions?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:40 amI remember watching the Roberts and Alito hearings and WISHING someone would ask, “If, sometime in the future, it is proven that George Bush stole the Ohio election of 2004, will you step down?”
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 amso incompetent. he seemed smart to the president that appointed him. but that is easy. We haven’t had a republican president that wasn’t a crook since, Ike. That is a half a century of corrupt, criminal behavior. The dems aren’t a lot better, but darn it if they didn’t help the people as they took care of themselves.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:14 amwe need a multi party system because we need a 3rd party that represents the people. the others do not
Sounds like Clarence is just barely holding it together. If Scalia starts teasing him while they’re in session…
November 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pmWhy in the world is this man so bitter and angry?
Comment by Helen Rainier
Because he hates affirmative action, and every day he has to see the world’s biggest benficiary of affirmative action, when he looks in the mirror. It makes him cranky.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThomas had the most prestigious education available. Affirmative action was responsible for it. and yes Helen, he does seem to hate himself for it. He is very unprofessional and a big whine bag. Anyone with a brain and pulse knows he made those advances to Anita Hill He is a conservative stuck in a liberal body and it drives him nuts.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pmYes, Clarence’s fellow justices should shut up. Just read his book where he shouts out his brand of truth, and “shut TFU.”
Truly, that embodies the freedom of speach America stands for, and his book enunciates the impartiality Americans expect of our most esteemed arbitors of justice. A Justice hawking books while preaching the above-reproach (scrutiny) virtues of SCOTUS.
Scalia is just lucky that a drunken VP didn’t shoot him in the face while on an Air Force Two junket to hunt while the VP had a case pending before the court.
If only every American had access to AF Two, could scamper away from sexual discriminatation (pubic hair on a coke can – have a drink honey) justice and tell the system to “Just shut up”, what a merry country we would could cuddle up to.
Bone your collegues Clarence . . . you are the man, you’re entitled.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:05 pmHeck, pubic hair on a coke can just reflected his youthful exhuberance and obsession with Anita Hill. Youthful exhuberance . . . that why dub’ya’s Texas driving record was erased before his gubernatorial race in Texas, why the fact that Laura Bush was never tested for DUI after she T-boned her ex-high school boyfriend’s car resulting in his death and the subsequent removal of that nasty incident from her history, and dub’yas very public cocaine usage in Dallas is simply no longer discussed or on the record.
Just shut up! It’s a philosophy that’s worked so well for the past fifteen years . . . why, Clarence asks, why, start rockin’ my boat now”? (Could get a little sketchy . . if people [Americans] ask questions, and Justices speak . . . who knows where that could lead?)
December 1st, 2007 at 7:19 pm