In New Book, Justice Thomas Weighs In on Former Accuser

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Sep 29, 2007.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    Why this again? Why now?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/washington/30thomas.html
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    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.
     
  3. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    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...
     
  4. Naimfan macrumors 601

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #4
    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......
     
  5. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #5
    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.
     
  6. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Naimfan macrumors 601

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #7
    Why not? Everyone else does! :D

    He's something of a laughingstock among constitutional law lawyers.....
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Ah yes the old "disgruntled (former) employee(s) argument.

    Haven't we heard that time and again since 2000?
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    At a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue in New York a couple of years ago someone asked him, `What’s the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?’. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I’m a conservative. I’m a texturalist. I’m an originalist. But I’m not a nut.’
     
  10. Veritas&Equitas macrumors 68000

    Veritas&Equitas

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    #10
    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.
     
  11. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    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.
     
  12. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #12
    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.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Which sounds remarkably like how Bush 43 described Harriet Myers when he nominated her...
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    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.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    Maybe, but that would make sense.
     

Share This Page