Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Sep 29, 2007.
Why this again? Why now?
I'll bite. Because they've got nothing else going for them right now and they hope it'll be a good distraction? Or some fodder for the right? Created or no. Or because he's still pissed off about it, and figures he has nothing to lose at this point and was offered a book deal.
I watched part of the interview with Thomas on 60 Minutes last night. This is one weird dude. I think it's fair to say that even now, 15 years later, he's seething with anger over the confirmation hearings. He seemed to resent the suggestion that he'd won in the end, so perhaps it should not matter quite so much. "Won what?" he shot back. Uhhhh, let me think...
The astonishing thing to me is that he's on the Court. He's just not very bright.....just read his opinions. Yeah, even though they're written by law clerks......
He does seem to be still seething. His reply from the shower when his wife said he'd passed "Whoop-idy d**n doo" is comment worthy. Maybe this hard copy, book response is a low tech teeth clinching. It won't accomplish much, imo.
I don't question his intelligence, I just wonder about his priorities, and how they affect his judgement. Combating his political opponents, real or imagined, seems to be way too high on his personal to-do list.
Why not? Everyone else does!
He's something of a laughingstock among constitutional law lawyers.....
Ah yes the old "disgruntled (former) employee(s) argument.
Haven't we heard that time and again since 2000?
At a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue in New York a couple of years ago someone asked him, `Whats the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, Im a conservative. Im a texturalist. Im an originalist. But Im not a nut.
Honestly, Thomas is completely nuts. I not only question his intelligence, but I really question his sanity.
He's the most conservative justice on the Court not only today, but on any Supreme Court since since the turn of the 19th century.
Look at his opinions on the scope of the federal government, among other things. He believes that nearly everything FDR did during the New Deal was unconstitutional, and would like for nearly every regulation and law set during that time in response to the Depression to be repealed.
Look at his take on stare decisis; even Scalia said that Thomas really doesn't follow it in any form, either literally or ideologically. His opinions are ridiculously unsophisticated and moronic.
I don't know one Con Law expert that thinks nearly anything Thomas opines is even within a universe of logic regarding his "interpretation" of the Constitution.
Thomas makes Scalia look like Thurgood Marshall.
Ouch. I don't recall his exact words, but when George Bush I nominated him, he described Thomas as the most qualified person for the job. It was a strange remark right on the face of it. At the time Thomas was about 40 years old and had never been a judge.
It was fascinating as a history and political science major to watch the confirmation hearings unfold. My views have changed considerably in retrospect since then. He won begrudging approval of course, but I believe in today's climate he wouldn't stand a chance.
Which sounds remarkably like how Bush 43 described Harriet Myers when he nominated her...
That's what I was thinking. But she was blocked by her own. I don't understand how he even got in, controversy or not.
I was young then, it was long before my foray into politics.
OK, I'll throw this out-
Sounds to me like someone just sexually harassed another co-worker/associate and this is a pre-emptive warning about how his/her character will be assassinated should he/she come forward. Just a thought.
Maybe, but that would make sense.