Let's cut to the chase...Clarence Thomas is "UNCLE TOM" on steroids.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/clarence-thomas/judicial-philosophy.html

When the government gets 'out of hand' it follows that there will be questioning.

The notion that government should not be questioned is not something you would expect to hear from a guardian of our democracy.

Uncle Thomas is the best argument yet for SCOTUS term limits.

So your saying that when you launch an all out viscous smear attack against a man trying to destroy him, and you fail, he might hold a grudge? Gee, who'd a thunk it?

I hate that guy. I have always hated that guy.

I drone on and on about the good old days when a conservative repub would get on the bench, supposedly free from outside influences. He would survey the country from up high

AND HE WOULD HAVE A BLESSED EPIPHANY.

Thomas and Scalia and Alito awaken every morning and proclaim:

HOW CAN WE HELP THE FASCIST STATE TODAY!!!

You're refering to President Obama?

I guess all the right wing rhetoric of the Republican Presidents on the sancitity of life during those speeches don't count right? As usual IOKIYAR

Show me the quote from a state of the union address where a republican president directly criticized and called for congressional override of a decision by the currently sitting supreme court. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

HA! You'll be lucky if he isn't impeached before then.

Yes it does drive us nuts because he either had a silver spoon in his mouth or is denying his roots! The threat to white privilege is what he is preventing, I wonder how he sleeps at night when I can pretty much say with some certainty he has cousins who live in poverty. But some people don't possess a conscience, I suppose.

Read his biography, he grew up desperately poor. He worked for everything he achieved.

As far as having a conscience, Obama is a multi millionaire who has an illegal alien aunt living in public housing and a brother living in a mud hut, and he is doing nothing to help either of them.

Funny how evidence from numerous women presenting detailed information about Bill Clinton's actions was deemed unreliable, but the testimony of one woman who followed Thomas from job to job despite his alleged harassment is somehow unimpeachable.

It is the well meaning but wrong headed liberal policies that trap the poor in their position.

As to Obama, I grant you that he had accomplished nothing prior to being elected and his only experience running anything was in running his mouth. Also that he is a typical politician who has used his 'public service' to enrich himself greatly. Without being elected to office he would have had nothing. However, he is now a multimillionaire, and it's been 6 years, and his brother still lives in a mud hut.

So he kissed ass all the way to the Supreme Court! Awesome!

Thomas since the "Legal lynching" of him at his hearings, sees himself as a victimized quantity. No doubt he employs this whenever his decisions are labeled or attacked as GOP propaganda.

I don't think much of him, and if he was the best HW Bush could come up with, he should have spent a longer time looking. This was of course a political token move by Bush to in his mind appease the African American community, which in of itself is ridiculous and infantile, as though that's all they need is a black face.

That is why most African Americans should be insulted by our political system--because as Malcolm X said 40 years ago, every 4 years the white man gets together with the least militant black leaders and holds their hands, and invite them to the wite house for "coffee and ideas."
BS. Thomas was a political compromise, and if the Republicans could have felt safe puttinganother white face on the bench, they would have happily done so.

I thought we were evaluating Justice Thomas! Wanna' read about my Uncle Jeb? He poked sheep. Quit ranting...I'm dozing off!

Yet you adamantly refuse to believe the numerous women that accused Clinton of rape, assault, battery, etc. See anything wrong with that?

How would you know? He asked a total of one question during the entire last session!
I know how smart he is; (not) I watched hours of his skanky hearings for confirmation, and saw him sweat under the glare. He is a sexist, woman-hating loathesome man.

I've read his writings, which quite obviously you have not.

"Funny you have no problem with corporations like NY Times or CBS trying to influence elections."

That's not how Clarence "Hck" Thomas expressed it. (And you fail to attribute that comment to him, in order to pretend you came up with it by yourself).

The "NY Times" is news media -- and actually manages to be that much of the time. By contrast, FOX is nothing more than propaganda for the far-right lunatic fringe ignoramouses such as you falsely believe is 'mainstream".

Asshole: learn the difference between FACT and OPINION -- between NEWS and EDITORIAL. The "NY Times" knows the difference, therefore it is able to critically evaluate SC decisions without implicating its corporate interests.

My dad grew up in the ghetto. His next door neighbor was murdered in front of him. Police killed a man in front of his house. He saw people shot, stabbed, ice picked, or scalded, on a regular basis. He grew up to become a firefighter and worked at an inner city firehouse for most of his career -including during the 68 riots. He saw to it that I got a good education, that I worked hard in school. I got a good job, worked hard, and yes had some good luck also. I made more money in one year than he did in his entire career. I grew up with not much and now there is not much I don't have. I helped on a habitat house in the mid nineties, I mentored a young minority and helped him get started in his career on my last job. Don't think you know me, you don't.

Again, you didn't live that experience, your dad did. Unless you've actually lived it, you won't understand.

I see: Thomas pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, without anyone else's help, as Republicans demand everyone do it.

But by hypocritical contrast Obama is to be faulted because he isn't helping his aunt who lives in public housing, and isn't helping his brother, who lives in Kenya, in a mud hut.

"Mut hut" = racism.

Get it through your stupidity, Cowardly Bullshitter: you are not a judge of the law, or of the judiciary, or of the difference between jurist and hack. Thomas is an anti-Affirmative Action Affirmative Action beneficiary.

And as for the freeing of corporations from "discrimination": the 14th Amendment requires EQUALITY before the law -- not that a minority of sociopathic corporations have more rights, more speech, than the vast majority who don't own media, microphones, and lobbyists.

You can think (I doubt it), or you can borrow your beliefs from others, and then repeat those beliefs like a brainwashed parrot. You do the latter becaseu you have nothing to offer but phony horseshit which has nothing to do with fact or reality.

Well as usual you respond with nonsensical gibberish. NY Times is a corporation, it papers report 'news' (as it sees fit), but they also have editorials which allow them to express their opinions and lobby for their causes - actions which other corporations are prohibited from.

First, you have no idea what his IQ is. Second, your assertions about affirmative action are baseless. Third, you are an idiot.

You are an asshole, and illiterate, an ignoramous, an ignorant, and an ideologue who holds a view properly spelled:

R-A-C-I-S-T. And, in the alternative:

B-I-G-O-T-R-Y.

In other words: you don't know what you're talking about.

This is how the judiciary is REQUIRED to function, asshole:

1. Parties, usually a plaintiff, brings a question before the court.

2. The judge/s applies the law to the question.

3. The "answer" to the question is the HOLDING.

PERIOD.

Instead, in the "corporate oppression" decision, the SC 5 took it on themselves -- this is at very least an ETHICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST --

1. To go BEYOND the parties' question before the court,

2. In order to drag in ITS objection to the law,

3. Formulated as question --

4. Even AGAINST the position of the PLAINTIFF --

5. And then rule on ITS questions.

THAT is the DEFINITION not only of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM but ALSO of TYRANNY. The court is REQUIRED to comply with the Constitution, and with precedent/stare decisis, AND to LIMIT ITSELF to the question before the court brought by the PARTIES.

Either conform your comments to those STANDARDS, or STFU.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says some questioning of the court and government is getting out of hand.

Thomas told an audience Thursday at the University of Florida law school that some of the comments "border on being irresponsible" and "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties."

To be fair, Thomas then went on to say that if people wish to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, they can always incorporate themselves.

Without a doubt, corporations should be able to participate the same as individuals, labor unions, or environmental groups. Why should only their rights be limited?

Once again you insist on demonstrating to the world how stupid you are, and how delusional as well as you now claim to be more knowledgeable of the law than the US Supreme Court. Rave on lunatic.

Citation for rape, assault, battery, etc. re Clinton. Otherwise STFU!

Thomas got a life-time appointment!

It is time to change this! 20 years is long enough!

By this rationale, then corporations should be able to vote too. Labor unions are on record stating they would gladly relinquish what this ruling allows as it means individual's rights for democratic election processes will be perverted and grassroots efforts by individiuals will be greatly diminished.

You ask why should 'their' rights be limited - because each 'person' that makes up their entity all have individual rights - so entities such as Goldman, AIG, Sony, et al. in essence their employees and employers get 'double rights'?

CB, I am surprised that you honestly tout this ruling as fair and what's best for our country.

FOX is a corporation which does ONLY editorializing for far-right lunatic fringe/corporate interests.

That is NOT the same as the "NY Times" which actually DOES report news.

Again, ignoramous: you are not qualified to speak on matters of law -- even as concerns the basic standards of how the judiciary is REQUIRED to function.

Get it through your ignorance, asshole: if the judiciary can make up ITS OWN questions, then rule on those in keeping with the ends IT wants -- instead of in keeping WITH THE LAW -- then NO ONE neede EVER take a case to court.

And THAT, asshole, is TYRANNY by the UNELECTED. EXACTLY as happened with Bush v. Gore. Have you read the Constitution -- which is ABOVE the SC -- yet on that point?

No, you haven't: you're a stupid-assed sucker for hate pumped down your gullible gullet by such as FOX.

I've read sufficent of his writings to recognize that he is a pseudo-intellectual mediocrity -- which is why he mistakes IDEOLOGY for LAW.

And, yes: he got where he is as result of Affirmative Action -- which you, RACIST, HATE, because you HATE the 14th Amendment/Constitution.

Which, of ocurse, you have no way of knowing, as you DON'T have an education in law. I DO.

Go back and READ AGAIN my statement of the facts of how the judiciary is REQUIRED to function -- as contrasted with the "coporate oppression" actions of the SC 5.

And, again, asshole -- as reminder for the moron you are:

The US Constitution EXPRESSLY STIPULATES WHICH branch has SOLE authority to resolve election disputes such as that in 2000. That SOLE authority belongs to the ELECTED CONGRESS -- it concerns ELECTIONS, asshole -- NOT to the UNelected SC.

With that decision Bush v. Gore -- the SC 5 DEMOLISHED its credibility by having UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and SUBVERSIVELY USURPING that EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY. That was only worsened with its anti-Constitution/-historical Second Amendment decision.

THAT'S THE LAW. OBJECTING to that is FALSE and IDEOLOGICAL HORSESHIT.

And your constant denial of the STANDARDS of law, including those which gvern adjudication, based upon your America-hating stupidity, changes NONE of that.

And I accuse George W Bush of going to war over a bunch of lies that his buddies put together. Neither of us went to court over it, but still...

#1 Which is more serious, considering the costs to our country in blood and treasure?

#2 Which is documented by facts?

Bill Clinton most likely had sex with people other than his wife; I will stipulate that. Why do you right-wingers waste so much time on that, since you do it all yourselves, and often in a way that you overtly condemn?

Why do you also seem unable to comprehend that it is worse to start a WAR on bogus reasons than it is to get naked and have sex with someone? The facts are clear and documented, that the Cheney administration wanted war with Iraq, and 911 was a "convenient" excuse -- although a false one -- but one that was manipulated effectively by our very own regime.

Nice try at changing the topic because it's awfully hard to defend the indefensible.

NONE of those allegations turned out to be true, though, correct? Else Clinton would have been charged, tried, etc.

In addition, though impeached by the Republican-controlled House -- the Republican lynch mob being lead by Henry Hyde, who was at the time having an adulterous affair with a MARRIED woman, and which affair BROKE UP that marriage -- Clinton was ACQUITTED of the charge of perjury by the Republican-controlled Senate.

So your groundless smears against Clinton -- who is not the topic of this thread to begin with, and it is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to attempt to change the subject away from the issue -- redound to YOU as concerns questions of character.

LYING is IMMORAL, MORON. And that includes your intellectual pretense -- your intellectual dishonesty -- that you know law, without bothering with getting an actual EDUCATION in law -- that you can determine whether the SC 5 are hacks or not.

"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE the law." -- John Adams.

And you CONTINUE to IGNORE the fact that LAW and POLITICS are NOT THE SAME THING. And it is only by means of THAT dishonesty that you and your fellow America-haters can assert the bald-faced bullshit that the SC 5's "corporate oppression" decision is a POLITICAL LIE which makes a mockery not only of LAW but also of the basic standards of adjudication:

The PARTIES bring question/s TO the court; the court DOES NOT PROPERLY raise ITS OWN questions about the case SEPARATE FROM THE CASE, AND CONTRARY to the law.

Do the math, asshole: 100 years ago was BEFORE FDR, BEFORE the "New Deal," BEFORE the ascendancy of the Liberalism you stupidly hate with the same degree of vitriolic vehemence by means of which it was demonized by HITLER.

And NONE of their allegations EVER rose to the level of ACTUAL case based on those charges.

Moreever, moron: they wree first "represented" by Ted Olsen's "Arkansas Project".

At least one of their "cases" was then passed to a Kenneth Starr -- who, when he was officially appointed to investigate Clinton, including those claims -- a conflict of interest, as he'd already represented one side of the "case" -- passed that "case" on to another set of lawyers. And that set of lawyers "fired" the client becaseu her story kept CHANGING.

But we get it: whenever your horseshit is yet again demolished -- refuted for the specious and false bullshit it is -- you retreat into changing the subject to --

CLINTON! CLINTON! CLINTON! CLINTIN!

Lying is IMMORAL moron -- even when YOU do it.

By contrast with the lying:

Torture is defined IN AND BY LAW, NOT by such as the Bushit criminal enterprise --

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.

The LAW defines as torture, among others, WATERBOARDING.

Torture is ALWAYS illegal, under ALL circumstances, for EVERYONE. It CANNOT be made LEGAL.

In addition: the Bushit cirminal enterprise, behind the drive for revenge for the 3,000 9/11 murders, LIED the country into ILLEGALLY invading and occupying a country -- Iraq -- which was never a threat to the US. And, there, not only did that criminal enterprise replace Saddam as Toturer-in-Chief, but also got MORE THAN 3,000 US troops KILLED in so doing.

And yeah: you "Support the troops" -- so long as tied to support of that criminal enterprise, which ensures that those troops you "Support" are needlessly, pointlessly, and permanently KILLED in service to your America-hating ideology.

So go on defending the anti-Constitutional lawlessness of the SC 5, and your self-hating Thomas -- so long as they "Support" your rejection of Constitution/rule of law/your country in favor of America-hating treason.

Then are you admitting your claim that it was one remark was incorrect? Were you just lying to make your case stronger?

This blog is about Clarence Thomas. If you care to write a blog about Clinton I might weigh in. If you wrote that blog it would be kinda stupid if I cited Thomas' alleged sexaul harassment in defence of Clinton.

If the evidence that Clinton behaved inappropriately was believable it wouldn't have any relevance to a discussion of Thomas' alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill. Just as if the evidence about Thomas was convincing it would not have any relevance as to whether the evidence against Clinton was convincing.

The three branches of our gov't are CO-EQUAL. NO branch is the superior of any other.

Got that? (I know that's virtually impossible for you to grasp because you oppose EQUALITY in any form.)

That results in what is called checks and balances.

And it is precisely checks and balances by means of which one or another is checked by the other two.

As for calling on Congress to overturn the SC -- it is a co-equal check against the UNelected judiciary, asshole. And it is not a rare occurrence. See "The Civil Rights Restoration Act" (1985) by means of which Congress overturned a line of cases -- authored by right-wing hack Rehnquist -- concerning disability rights law, the express language of which he IGNORED in order to falsely narrow its express scope in order to find against victims of disability-based discrimination and in favor of corporations engaged in discrimination. See Grove City for an example of his falsification of the express language of the statute.

On top of which -- pay attention, law-/history-illiterate --

During the 1980s -- while the above "Restoration Act" was being debated and enacted by Congress, and signed by President REAGAN -- Robert Bork, crackpot and SC wannabe, who claims to have been a "constitutional law professor," combined pushing his latest book all over the US with "argument" in favor of amending the Constitution in order to make it legal for Congress to overturn the SC.

Got that, jackass? --

WHILE Congress was overturning the SC -- which it has the Constitutional authority to do -- Bork was "arguing" that the Constitution needed to amended so Congress would have the authority to overturn the SC . . .

Got that, moron? --

The SC, and those afforded the PRIVILEGE of sitting on it, are NOT ABOVE the Constitution. And they are NOT ABOVE being criticized for their actions -- any more than is any other public SERVANT. And, yes, Congress has ALWAYS had the Constitutional authority to OVERTURN the SC -- it's a CHECK AND BALANCE, law-illiterate.

Bottom line:

Were you not so stupid a moron you'd have learned by now to STFU instead of constantly making a fool of yourself by boldly asserting your arrogant ignorance.

And you have the gall, specifically, to delude yourself that you are qualified to speak on matters of law -- simply because the law-illiterate ENTERTAINERS on FOX's fraud on America give you law-illiterate anti-Constitutional America-hating talking points to repeat like a dumber-than-dead-rocks parrot!?

I'll make it real simple, simpleton:

Neither FOX nor Limbaugh or their fellow overpaid ENTERTAINERS is any more a legal authority than is the NRA. Moreover, they are not qualified to speak competently on matters of law. As example:

The SC -- which you consider exempt from criticism so long as America-hating far-right lunatic fringe -- held, in the habeas decision against the America-hating Bushit criminal enterprise, that foreign nationals held in US custody are subject to all the laws of the US including the protections in the laws. And that is only the most recent instance of the SC upholding that fundamental principle of law.

It is also the reality -- you abhor reality -- that international law -- to which the US is subject -- stipulates the same:

When a person is in the custody of a given country, that person is subject to the laws of that country including the protections in those laws.

In addition, international law -- to which the US is subject -- stipulates minimum basic protections of such individuals -- any nation's laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

Tell us, asshole: Why are you against treating human beings decently, based upon the fundamental principal of democratic due process, presumption of innocence? Might it be because then there's a risk that the person might be found innocent, instead of being ineluctably "offed" for being brown and or having a "wrong" religion?

Are you saying that corporations, before this decision, were unable to hire innumerable lobbyists, which We the people don't have?

Which you don't have?

Are you asserting, with a straight face, that before this decision a lobbyist didn't afford a more-than-equal advantage over those who didn't have lobbyists?

Which lobbyists you don't have?

Are you saying that having greater access to the legislature and legislative process, and therefore having a greater-than-equal advantage, is acceptable?

Which greater access you don't have?

If you are saying that it is acceptable for corporations to have a greater-than-equal advantage -- even though that leaves you out and behind -- then why are you an enemy of Affirmative Action, which is FALSELY said to give a greater-than-equal advantage?

Is it because you stupidly believe you gain an advantage because corporations hire lobbyists who lobby against your interests?

Which lobbyists you don't have?

There's a simple fundamental you don't get -- and you don't get it precisely because of your racism combined with the brain-dead pseudo-philosphy "Libertarianism".

"Libertarianism" falsely assumes that reality is perfect, therefore there is no need for that you racists see as "special" or "extra" "rights". Thus you oppose Affirmative Action as a "special" or "extra" right. Thus you oppose all civil rights laws.

Why do you oppose them? Because, you disingenuously insist, they are "racist" because "race-based".

And, of course, you would oppose "anti-lynching laws" because they would be "race-based" -- er, they would afford one "special" "group" protections instead of providing the same protections to all "groups".

They would be "race-based" -- which is, in your perfect world, a no-no -- because they would protect only African-Americans.

That view leaves out the actual reality, of course: the history of lynching is this:

It was only applied to African-Americans. And it was applied by those who were not African-Americans. Therefore, the only "group" needing that "special" protection -- in order to secure for them equality of right to life (at very least) -- were African-Americans.

Yet the racists -- they deny they are that of course -- like to sound as if they aren't racist by opposing all "race-based" laws. Yeah: and in the case of anti-lynching laws, the lynchers would be opposed to laws which constrained them against engaging in lynching.

They would argue against those laws because "race-baed" -- because they don't exist to also protect non-African-Americans from lynching; such as those who have a history of being lynchers.

Got it? Reality isn't perfect.

Therefore, in some instances laws are necessary -- pursuant to the 14th Amendment -- to "level the playing field". Just because you don't need protection from lynching doesn't mean those who do need that protection shouldn't have it.

"So your saying that" it's acceptable to "launch an all out viscous smear attack against a man trying to destroy him," -- but only if that man is a Democrat, and President?

And you contend that doing so is MORAL, moron -- but only when the target is a DEMOCRAT?

It as the integrity of the person making the accusation, and the quality of the evidence.

None of which applied to those who, dug up by the far-right "Arkansas Project" specifically to make allegations, made ever-changing allegations against Clinton.

Clinton isn't on the SC. Thomas is. Thomas voted to support an activist deision which is contrary to at minimum the 14th Amendment.

Stick to the topic of STFU, moron.

Look idiot, the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice wrote in his dissent opinion that the Florida decision would be overturned and documented exactly why it would be. The US Supreme court agreed with him. But I guess you are the true expert. Ha!

"Thomas told an audience Thursday at the University of Florida law school that some of the comments "border on being irresponsible" and "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties.""

He was referring to the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, right?

I've shown six ways from sunday that you aren't competent to comment on law.

That didn't happen with Brown. But it DID happen with the "corporate oppression" decision.

And it happened with Bush v. Gore.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019

If you honestly beleive he's that smart, you're dumber than I thought.

Well, believe what you want. I stand by what I said.

Well, as usual mediamatters research is flawed. First, in the cases of Reagan and Bush cited, they were either not criticizing the current court, or were not referring to the Supreme court at all. In the case of Harding, his comments were not a criticism of the court but a statement of fact. In none of these case were the judges present. Obama openly declared their ruling to be WRONG, to their face, while they couldn't respond, and sought applause from Congress to show them he was right. That WAS unprecedented.

You say that it "didn't happen" with Brown because the Court accomplished the ends you wanted. Considering either precedent and the origianl intent of the 14th amendment, there was no way that the 14th amendment banned segregated schools. The court ruled as it did because it wanted to desegregate schools, and decided to keep with an interpretation that accomplished the end it wanted, rather than the law. You don't see it in that case because it accomplished the end that you wanted.