WTH is Clarence Thomas going to do now? He asks no questions and votes with Scalia almost every time.
Will his head explode from all of the thinking he must do now, or will he just vote like Roberts or Alito?
WTH is Clarence Thomas going to do now? He asks no questions and votes with Scalia almost every time.
Will his head explode from all of the thinking he must do now, or will he just vote like Roberts or Alito?
The whole Clarence Thomas always voting with Scalia thing is a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?_r=0
He voted with Scalia a lot, but he also voted with Alito a lot, and he voted with Alito and Scalia less than Kagen and Sotomayor voted together. One thing I hadn't realized before I saw this grid was how much the court votes together generally. The justices that differ most frequently with each other are Thomas and Ginsburg, and even they agree two thirds of the time.
Interesting thanks for posting it
lol Nobody's mind ever gets changed when discussing politics anyway.Why do you even bother? ivwshane's a pathetic hack and has proven himself to be completely incapable of reasonably intelligent and objective discussion. I'll give you an 'A' for effort though.
lol Embrace the racism, eh? Who needs context when we already know that Latinas just make better decisions? And of course, since there weren't any "wise Latinas" writing the Constitution, we should be grateful when she ignores it.Kagen was the dean of Harvard law school.
A latina probably would make better decisions then a white person. But do you have the context for when she said that?
werepossum - You are a conservative through and through but you can be reasonable at times. Lets let this be one of those times. I know it hurts but come back to the center and lets all talk about the future.
Yes, I wouldn't disagree that it has happened, especially pre-war. I just disagree that it's wise.Lots of SC justices were never judges before being appointed.
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
Yes, I wouldn't disagree that it has happened, especially pre-war. I just disagree that it's wise.
It's just another verse in the same old "stupid black man too dumb to understand that we know what's best for him" song, but thanks for linking its antidote.The whole Clarence Thomas always voting with Scalia thing is a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?_r=0
He voted with Scalia a lot, but he also voted with Alito a lot, and he voted with Alito and Scalia less than Kagen and Sotomayor voted together. One thing I hadn't realized before I saw this grid was how much the court votes together generally. The justices that differ most frequently with each other are Thomas and Ginsburg, and even they agree two thirds of the time.
Interesting. I wonder if Axelrod has ever printed this before. Not that I don't trust David Axelrod, but . . . I don't trust David Axelrod. Awfully convenient now that Scalia can't deny it and Obama has the opportunity to nominate another like her. But it does strike at the least one true point - Kagan certainly is smart. I'd hold out for demonstrable appellate judgment, but at least she's no Harriet Miers.Interesting piece from Axelrod, supposedly Scalia wanted Kagan on the court.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
lol Nobody's mind ever gets changed when discussing politics anyway.
lol Embrace the racism, eh? Who needs context when we already know that Latinas just make better decisions? And of course, since there weren't any "wise Latinas" writing the Constitution, we should be grateful when she ignores it.
Being the dean of Harvard law school is an excellent qualification when running to be dean of Yale's law school. Not for being a Supreme Court justice.
Boy, there's a choice made in remedial logic class. Either I agree that Latinas can make better decisions because they aren't white, or I am claiming victim status for being white. I'll have lasagna.poor victim. Its so hard being a white male eh?
Says who? You? What qualifications do you have to know what qualifications are good for the supreme court?
I didn't find anything earlier from Axelrod, but there's this from Scalia in 2010:Interesting. I wonder if Axelrod has ever printed this before. Not that I don't trust David Axelrod, but . . . I don't trust David Axelrod. Awfully convenient now that Scalia can't deny it and Obama has the opportunity to nominate another like her. But it does strike at the least one true point - Kagan certainly is smart. I'd hold out for demonstrable appellate judgment, but at least she's no Harriet Miers.
If even Scalia considered Kagan well-qualified, I believe we can safely conclude your contrary opinion is empty partisanship. Over one-third of SCOTUS justices had never served as judges before their appointments.Justice Scalia Praises Elena Kagan’s Lack of Judicial Experience
Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has been criticized by some Republican senators for lacking judicial experience. But Justice Antonin Scalia, the High Court’s most outspoken conservative, said Wednesday that he likes that the former Harvard Law School dean and Solicitor General is not currently a judge.
“When I first came to the Supreme Court, three of my colleagues had never been a federal judge,” said Scalia who joined the Court in 1986 after being nominated by President Reagan. “William Rehnquist came to the Bench from the Office of Legal Counsel. Byron White was Deputy Attorney General. And Lewis Powell who was a private lawyer in Richmond and had been president of the American Bar Association.”
“Currently, there is nobody on the Court who has not served as a judge --indeed, as a federal judge -- all nine of us,” he continued. “. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”
Scalia made his remarks about Kagan while delivering the Second Annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture. The speech was sponsored by The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and was held in the Ceremonial Courtroom at the United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
It's just another verse in the same old "stupid black man too dumb to understand that we know what's best for him" song, but thanks for linking its antidote.
Interesting. I wonder if Axelrod has ever printed this before. Not that I don't trust David Axelrod, but . . . I don't trust David Axelrod. Awfully convenient now that Scalia can't deny it and Obama has the opportunity to nominate another like her. But it does strike at the least one true point - Kagan certainly is smart. I'd hold out for demonstrable appellate judgment, but at least she's no Harriet Miers.
The whole Clarence Thomas always voting with Scalia thing is a myth.
Schumer is one Senator & was speaking hypothetically. No vacancy occurred, making the issue moot at the time. Dems could have turned back both Roberts and Alito yet they did not.
So if I don't agree that Latinas just make better decisions I'm claiming white victimhood AND afraid of something that will likely happen long after I'm dead?remove white peoples majority and they go nuts. Like its you god given right to be on top or something? Get ready for the reality of your situation.
Hardly "empty partisanship" since it applies equally to justices appointed by Presidents of both parties. That's the opposite of partisanship - not that I would expect you to agree, since you have been consistent in claiming partisanship against anyone who opposes the Democrats in anything. Thanks for the Scalia link though. As far as Sotomayor, the only way one could not take her statement as racist would be to excuse her for being a female, a Latina, or a Democrat.I didn't find anything earlier from Axelrod, but there's this from Scalia in 2010:
If even Scalia considered Kagan well-qualified, I believe we can safely conclude your contrary opinion is empty partisanship. Over one-third of SCOTUS justices had never served as judges before their appointments.
Your continued misrepresentation of Sotomayor's statement as racist is equally partisan. This is apparent to anyone who bothers to read her entire comment in context rather than fixating on the one word, "Latina."
Or they could simply vote down the nominee. That would be doing their duty, assuming they find he or she unqualified.so the dems need 14 repubs to prevent a filibuster.
doesn't look like that's going to happen.
more and more senate repubs are coming out siding w/McConnell in no nominee for Obama.
Yawn. That's fine ... if you can show us where you expressed the same objections to a Republican nominee. That would show your opinion there is not driven by partisanship, but instead by simple ignorance.Hardly "empty partisanship" since it applies equally to justices appointed by Presidents of both parties. That's the opposite of partisanship - not that I would expect you to agree, since you have been consistent in claiming partisanship against anyone who opposes the Democrats in anything. Thanks for the Scalia link though.
Or one could consider her whole comment in context, including the parts about wisdom, richness of life experiences, and the fact that adding diversity to a relatively homogeneous group tends to produce better outcomes. This is something most big businesses understand, though it can be threatening to those entrenched in that old, homogeneous paradigm.As far as Sotomayor, the only way one could not take her statement as racist would be to excuse her for being a female, a Latina, or a Democrat.
For the former, Harriet Miers. I vehemently opposed her, although her lack of judicial experience was merely one reason of many. For the latter, I can only hope that one day whites will also be able to have the wisdom that comes from "richness of life experiences".Yawn. That's fine ... if you can show us where you expressed the same objections to a Republican nominee. That would show your opinion there is not driven by partisanship, but instead by simple ignorance.
Or one could consider her whole comment in context, including the parts about wisdom, richness of life experiences, and the fact that adding diversity to a relatively homogeneous group tends to produce better outcomes. This is something most big businesses understand, though it can be threatening to those entrenched in that old, homogeneous paradigm.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant objection to a Republican nominee who had excellent qualifications similar to Kagan's. Almost everybody thought Miers was a poor choice. Kagan, in contrast, had wide support from both sides of the aisle.For the former, Harriet Miers. I vehemently opposed her, although her lack of judicial experience was merely one reason of many.
A great many do, and Sotomayor didn't say otherwise. That's where the "whole comment in context" part becomes critical instead of just knee-jerk spasms about racism. I suppose when the race card is the only card in your deck, it's what you play.For the latter, I can only hope that one day whites will also be able to have the wisdom that comes from "richness of life experiences".
I think its clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that
His opinions on such matters as which parties have “standing” to sue and which types of cases can be tried as class actions tilted the scales of justice sharply toward corporations and away from consumers, environmentalists, and women.
If you can't sue your cable monopoly, you can thank Scalia and the other 4 Republicans on the court.Two years later, in a 5-4 ruling that protected Comcast against a monopolization suit brought on behalf of 2 million cable subscribers, Scalia reinforced and expanded the beachhead he’d created with the Walmart ruling.
If you can't sue credit card company that's hosing you, you can thank Scalia, and the other 4 Republicans on the court.Scalia rejected that argument in another 2013 opinion favoring American Express against small merchant plaintiffs that had sought to sue the credit card company collectively under antitrust law. The merchants’ only option, he said, was to pursue individual arbitration actions against AmEx, as provided for in their contracts with the company.
There's another SCOTUS nomination thread that's more appropriate for these kind of comments.Btw, I LOVE that Mitch McTurtle and others are now whining and moaning about respect, precedent, what is proper, etc. :biggrin: That's good stuff.
The lack of self-awareness within the GOP is simply mind boggling - do they really expect people to act like the last 12 or so years didn't happen? It's like listening to Bush voters get sanctimonious about experience and qualifications: as hilarious as it is confounding.
I hope Obama does whatever the fuck he feels like wrt to the vacancy, and those lying, obstructionist near-traitors who call themselves republicans can pound sand. Turtle tears are delicious.