PDA

View Full Version : Clarence Thomas: Judges should be evaluated by God, not Constitution



Redsfaithful
01-16-2005, 10:58 PM
How do the "strict interpretation of the Constitution"ers feel about this?

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/110578420462860.xml


STAN BAILEY
News staff writer

MONTGOMERY - Three new associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court and one judge of the Court of Civil Appeals took oaths of office Friday in ceremonies at Troy University's Davis Theatre.

The 1,200-seat theater was packed with relatives and friends of new justices Tom Parker, Mike Bolin and Patricia M. Smith, and civil appeals judge Tommy Bryan.

Many stood and applauded former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore as he walked to the stage to administer the oath to Parker. Moore's action was ceremonial, since Parker took his formal oath of office Thursday before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in Washington. Parker said Thomas told him a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution.

Bolin was administered the oath by Calhoun County Probate Judge Arthur C. Murray. Bolin said he was humbled by so many of his friends attending the ceremony and "by the trust placed in me by the citizens of Alabama." Bolin said he is a "strong conservative and a strict constructionist" of the law.

Alabama Chief Justice Drayton Nabers swore in Smith, who said her robe "`is a symbol of integrity and impartiality." She also paid tribute to her family, which drew laughter from the crowd when Nabers described them as "an immense number."

Bryan, who was sworn in by his father-in-law, the Rev. Joe Bob Mizell, paid tribute to his wife as "the best campaigner in Alabama." He said that, as a judge, he would "treat others as I would want to be treated" and interpret the law as it is rather than the way he might want it to be.

Chip R
01-16-2005, 11:26 PM
That's easy for Clarence to say since he's one that is evaluated by God. ;) Those other poor saps have to be re-elected.

Falls City Beer
01-17-2005, 12:40 AM
I can say with the utmost certainty that my IQ more than doubles Clarence Thomas's.

RedFanAlways1966
01-17-2005, 09:05 AM
I can say with the utmost certainty that my IQ more than doubles Clarence Thomas's.

Really? My brother just happens to be friends w/ Mrs. Thomas (the judge's wife). I have met and spoke with Judge Thomas and his wife more than once. They were very nice and intelligent (both of them). Have you ever met Judge Thomas?

I wonder if the unintelligent Judge Thomas ever wagered his first born and lost? I know some other genius who did... the one who had the utmost certainty that Jimmy Haynes would not win 14 games. I guess the comments above about Judge Thomas should go into the "consider the source" file. Imagine that.

BTW... I guess freedom of speech only matters when it fits certain causes. Hypocritical? Nah... just par for the course.

Falls City Beer
01-17-2005, 11:43 AM
Really? My brother just happens to be friends w/ Mrs. Thomas (the judge's wife). I have met and spoke with Judge Thomas and his wife more than once. They were very nice and intelligent (both of them). Have you ever met Judge Thomas?

I wonder if the unintelligent Judge Thomas ever wagered his first born and lost? I know some other genius who did... the one who had the utmost certainty that Jimmy Haynes would not win 14 games. I guess the comments above about Judge Thomas should go into the "consider the source" file. Imagine that.

BTW... I guess freedom of speech only matters when it fits certain causes. Hypocritical? Nah... just par for the course.

Who said anything about freedom of speech?

These fools putting their feet in their mouths (and pubes in their Cokes) is just grist for the mill. "Free speech" away!

GAC
01-18-2005, 11:14 AM
Clarence Thomas is not allowed to voice his opinion?

Did Mr Thomas administer to the swearing in of these new judges? No.

Is it a law in this country that a judge must swear an oath to God? No.

Did Mr Thomas say it should be a law? No.

It's Clarence Thomas' opinion. And since the man is a Christian, and people like you RF have a perception problem and paranoia about people in this great nation of ours who do advocate a belief in God, it's understandable that you would try to make something out of nothing in all of this.

To swear an oath/allegiance To God (Jesus) means to serve people. It's inseparable in the eyes/minds of a vast majority of Christians. It's not some blind loyalty to some impersonal God who doesn't give a hoot or care about His creation.

Jesus said "I came not to be served, but to serve", and his ministry proved that. That's why Jesus advocated such silly philosophies like "love your neighbor", the parable of the Good Samaritan, etc, etc.

No one can say they serve God, and then not serve people. And Mr Thomas was not advocating anything to the contrary IMO.

Redsfaithful
01-18-2005, 11:17 AM
Spin it however you want GAC, but a Supreme Court Justices job is to interpret the constitution, not to do what Christianity considers to be God's will.

Dom Heffner
01-18-2005, 11:22 AM
Anyone who studies Constitutional law can tell you that Thomas is not just terrible but possibly the worst justice to ever sit on the bench.

His opinions usually consist of just a few paragraphs, which could really be reduced to one sentence: "What Scalia said."

pedro
01-18-2005, 11:23 AM
Spin it however you want GAC, but a Supreme Court Justices job is to interpret the constitution, not to do what Christianity considers to be God's will.

I'll have to second that.

westofyou
01-18-2005, 11:25 AM
I'll have to second that.

Third here.

Hey Dom. :p: good to see you.... relatively speaking.

Puffy
01-18-2005, 11:26 AM
Anyone who studies Constitutional law can tell you that Thomas is not just terrible but possibly the worst justice to ever sit on the bench.

His opinions usually consist of just a few paragraphs, which could really be reduced to one sentence: "What Scalia said."

In my 14th Amendment class when I was a 3L we had a take home portion of the final in which we had to write an opinion on a case from whatever justice we chose. So I chose Scalia (who can actually write some of the most most brilliant decisions riddled with paranoid fallacies all in the same paragraph - its fascinating to read). We also could do a concurring decision - and mine was from Thomas and was a sentence long, and said, "Whatever Justice Scalia said, I agree with."

RedsBaron
01-18-2005, 02:20 PM
It should first be noted that the news article quotes new state justice Tom Parker claiming to quote from Justice Clarence Thomas. The reporter did not witness the supposed statement from Justice Thomas. There is accordingly the question of whether or not the quote is accurate, or in proper context.
I'm not sure what the supposed quote means. I believe we are all utimately judged by our relationship to God, so I have no argument if that was the meaning of the statement. Technically any oath is usually made to God, not "to the people, to the state or to the Constitution"-an official basically swears unto God to uphold the Constitution, so he or she is swearing an oath "to God," not "to the Constitution," but the oath is to uphold the Constitution.
Anyway the statement is hearsay at this point, nothing more, and rather vague hearsay at that.
I am familiar with former Alabama Justice Roy Moore, who I believe was properly removed from office when he failed to obey a court order. He had every right to disagree with the court order, to argue that it was wrong, to seek to overturn it----but he was bound by his oath of office to enforce the order and if he was unwilling to do, he should have resigned IMO.

RedsBaron
01-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Anyone who studies Constitutional law can tell you that Thomas is not just terrible but possibly the worst justice to ever sit on the bench.


Worse than Pierce Butler? Noah Swayne? John Catron? John Campbell? James M. Wayne?

RedsBaron
01-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Anyone who studies Constitutional law can tell you that Thomas is not just terrible but possibly the worst justice to ever sit on the bench.

His opinions usually consist of just a few paragraphs, which could really be reduced to one sentence: "What Scalia said."
How many opinions of Justice Thomas have you read?

RedsBaron
01-18-2005, 02:27 PM
I can say with the utmost certainty that my IQ more than doubles Clarence Thomas's.
1. What is your IQ?
2. What is Justice Thomas's IQ?

Dom Heffner
01-19-2005, 12:32 AM
How many opinions of Justice Thomas have you read?

I have read many of the court decisions handed down under the current court and from over the years. You cannot get through a Constitutional Law class without doing so.

Thomas rarely writes the majority or dissenting opinion, and it would seem that this is because he is not intellectually up to the task. I cannot think of any other reason. I am not lying when I tell you that when he does take the time to write, the opinions are usually very short and basically concur with Scalia and he throws in a point or so he wants to make. With all due respect, he is an idiot.

Puffy makes a wonderful observation about Scalia - sometimes he writes brilliantly, but even extravagantly dressed crap is, well, crap.

Read his dissent in the Texas sodomy case and count the fallacies.

westofyou
01-19-2005, 01:16 AM
Read his dissent in the Texas sodomy case and count the fallacies.

Yeah.... but you can dance to it.

Dom Heffner
01-20-2005, 10:36 AM
Yeah.... but you can dance to it.

Absolutely. I think you hit the either-or fallacy on the beat, but the slippery slope you actually do between beats. They used to do it at Cooter's in Cincy but you don't see it too much anymore. :)

Puffy
01-20-2005, 10:51 AM
Absolutely. I think you hit the either-or fallacy on the beat, but the slippery slope you actually do between beats. They used to do it at Cooter's in Cincy but you don't see it too much anymore. :)

And from what I hear Dom has a mean "White Man's Overbite" on the dance floor!!

Just sayin'

Falls City Beer
01-20-2005, 12:10 PM
Absolutely. I think you hit the either-or fallacy on the beat, but the slippery slope you actually do between beats. They used to do it at Cooter's in Cincy but you don't see it too much anymore. :)


Can we go ahead and hand out the "Post of the Year Award"--a "Cooter's" mention certainly warrants it.

Steve4192
01-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Can we go ahead and hand out the "Post of the Year Award"--a "Cooter's" mention certainly warrants it.
Agreed.

I'm having trouble remembering where Cooters was located. Was it the cheesy bar in University plaza by Dixie Chili (now Blockbuster) or was it the cheesy bar on between McMillan & Calhoun on Vine? Or is my memory completely muddled and it is in an entirely different location.

westofyou
01-20-2005, 12:57 PM
or was it the cheesy bar on between McMillan & Calhoun on Vine?

You mean the Lighthouse LTD.

$3.50 Drink and Drown on Wednesday nights!!!

tom browning
01-20-2005, 02:45 PM
Spin it however you want GAC, but a Supreme Court Justices job is to interpret the constitution, not to do what Christianity considers to be God's will.
Yep but dont waste your breath trying to tell the people blinded by their religion in their quest to convert everyone in the country to their faith.

tom browning
01-20-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm the commander. See? I don't need to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." ---George W. Bush .

Its amazing how many times I ask ," Did he really say that?!?", when seeing an actual Bush quote, but I still gotta ask, did he really say that?


To heck with debating Thomas and his IQ.
One thing I think we can establish here is, that Bush is a complete moron.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 04:02 PM
To heck with debating Thomas and his IQ.
One thing I think we can establish here is, that Bush is a complete moron.

Nice thoughtful post. 2 hours, 3 hours? How much research before this post?

Let me try... Bush is a complete moron. And I didn't use a comma after a verb (not that real morons do that... cause I don't like to revert to name-calling)! How about that? Only took me 22 seconds to type that all so powerful post.

I'd counterpoint... but there is nothing to counterpoint. Just senseless name-calling. I can hear that on the playground each and every day if that is what I wanted.

RedsBaron
01-20-2005, 04:17 PM
Dom keeps using that quote, but there is a thread somewhere here that put the quote in context. As I recall, Bush was making the point that he doesn't have to explain his statements to his subordinates, which is true. A cabinet member or other subordinate quite properly may be required to explain his or her actions to the President, but the President does not have the same obligation to explain himself to every subordinate.

CougarQuest
01-20-2005, 04:48 PM
That will be enough name calling. No more warnings. A ban will be enforced if there is.

A PM has been sent to you if this warning was directed to you. Read it. If you don't read it, consider yourself warned anyway.

tom browning
01-20-2005, 08:19 PM
That will be enough name calling. No more warnings. A ban will be enforced if there is.

A PM has been sent to you if this warning was directed to you. Read it. If you don't read it, consider yourself warned anyway.


What? I am not allowed to call Bush a moron? You gotta be kidding. The man is a menace. I mean I can understand being upset about posters calling other posters morons. Thats reasonable to want to keep off the boards. But not being able to call Bush a moron is just stupid and reeks of politcally based censorship.

WVRed
01-20-2005, 08:35 PM
Its amazing how many times I ask ," Did he really say that?!?", when seeing an actual Bush quote, but I still gotta ask, did he really say that?

I think there was a post sometime ago going in depth of Doms signature, to reveal that it was taken out of context. Dont know where it is though.

pedro
01-20-2005, 08:36 PM
What? I am not allowed to call Bush a moron? You gotta be kidding. The man is a menace. I mean I can understand being upset about posters calling other posters morons. Thats reasonable to want to keep off the boards. But not being able to call Bush a moron is just stupid and reeks of politcally based censorship.

Hi.

I'm Pedro. you may not know it but I'm one of the more liberal posters on the board. I voted for JK and share many of your views on our current president. That much being said, I don't think most people mind it if you want to discuss the finer points of specific policy that lead you to believe that Bush is a moron, as long as it is done in moderation. But name calling is considered offensive in mixed company and doesn't lead to alot of intelligent discussion, which is so obviously the point of this board.

Pretend you are at someone's house as their guest for dinner. Keep the conversation respectiful and quiet if you possibly can. After all, the food's good here and I think you'll want to be invited back.

WVRed
01-20-2005, 08:43 PM
Plenty of this to go around.

http://www.phrekwenci.com/haterade.jpg

tom browning
01-20-2005, 09:02 PM
Hi.

I'm Pedro. you may not know it but I'm one of the more liberal posters on the board. I voted for JK and share many of your views on our current president. That much being said, I don't think most people mind it if you want to discuss the finer points of specific policy that lead you to believe that Bush is a moron, as long as it is done in moderation. But name calling is considered offensive in mixed company and doesn't lead to alot of intelligent discussion, which is so obviously the point of this board.

Pretend you are at someone's house as their guest for dinner. Keep the conversation respectiful and quiet if you possibly can. After all, the food's good here and I think you'll want to be invited back.


Im sure a great many here who have a problem with me calling Bush a moron, exercised the same respect towards Clinton as well. Not.

Saying Bush is a moron isnt name calling. Its a factual observance of reality. As for policys of his that reflect this, pick one. Take a dart and throw it at em. Do it blindfolded and over your back. You cant miss.

zombie-a-go-go
01-20-2005, 09:08 PM
Im sure a great many here who have a problem with me calling Bush a moron, exercised the same respect towards Clinton as well. Not.


And if everyone else jumped off a bridge...

CougarQuest
01-20-2005, 09:09 PM
You've earned the ban

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 09:09 PM
Plenty of this to go around.

http://www.phrekwenci.com/haterade.jpg

I read your post before you got the image to work. And I was so very confused.


Im sure a great many here who have a problem with me calling Bush a moron

Attacking his actions is probably a lot more effective than calling him a moron.

Plus he's really not all that stupid. While his 1206 on the SAT probably shouldn't have gotten him into Yale, it's still respectable.

I feel unclean.

Falls City Beer
01-20-2005, 09:13 PM
"While his 1206 on the SAT probably shouldn't have gotten him into Yale"

Try "definitely shouldn't."

Most anyone can be coached into getting that kind of score on the SAT.

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 09:52 PM
Most anyone can be coached into getting that kind of score on the SAT.

No, they really can't. I know people who couldn't break 15 on the ACT.

His SAT score should be higher too, anyone that took it before, I think, 1994 should mark there score up a bit.

WVRed
01-20-2005, 09:58 PM
Can I call for a lock on this thread?:)

Falls City Beer
01-20-2005, 10:16 PM
No, they really can't. I know people who couldn't break 15 on the ACT.

His SAT score should be higher too, anyone that took it before, I think, 1994 should mark there score up a bit.

Alright, I'm exaggerating. But for people who aren't legacies, the Ivy League won't talk to you without a 1300. To get in, probably closer to 1400--Harvard closer to 1500+.

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 10:45 PM
Alright, I'm exaggerating. But for people who aren't legacies, the Ivy League won't talk to you without a 1300. To get in, probably closer to 1400--Harvard closer to 1500+.

I certainly agree with that!

CougarQuest
01-20-2005, 10:50 PM
What? I am not allowed to call Bush a moron? You gotta be kidding. The man is a menace. I mean I can understand being upset about posters calling other posters morons. Thats reasonable to want to keep off the boards. But not being able to call Bush a moron is just stupid and reeks of politcally based censorship.

Warned and decided to challenge the warning. Banned.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 10:52 PM
Alright, I'm exaggerating. But for people who aren't legacies, the Ivy League won't talk to you without a 1300. To get in, probably closer to 1400--Harvard closer to 1500+.

On this topic... I am watching a very interesting documentary on the U.S. Presidents (the History Channel). They made mention that FDR was a "C" student at Harvard. I would assume that FDR, the average student, helped gain admission the Ivy League school from the fact that he was the only child of aristocrats. But we all know about FDR the President. Didn't seem to do too bad of a job in the White House!

I am not quite sure what you mean, FCB, by "legacies"? Most 18-year-olds are not legacies. Do you mean come from wealthy or prestigous families? Seems as though the tag fits both Pres. G.W. Bush & FDR.

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 10:56 PM
I am not quite sure what you mean, FCB, by "legacies"? Most 18-year-olds are not legacies. Do you mean come from wealthy or prestigous families? Seems as though the tag fits both Pres. G.W. Bush & FDR.

Legacy means his father attended Yale.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 11:00 PM
Legacy means his father attended Yale.

D'oh... thanks, RF! That sure helps with admissions. Especially when donations are being made when the university calls. A few bricks, paid with Bush money, were probably laid on the Yale campus. "It's not what you know, it's who you know"... I say it all the time. In a lot of aspects of life.

Falls City Beer
01-20-2005, 11:05 PM
On this topic... I am watching a very interesting documentary on the U.S. Presidents (the History Channel). They made mention that FDR was a "C" student at Harvard. I would assume that FDR, the average student, helped gain admission the Ivy League school from the fact that he was the only child of aristocrats. But we all know about FDR the President. Didn't seem to do too bad of a job in the White House!

I am not quite sure what you mean, FCB, by "legacies"? Most 18-year-olds are not legacies. Do you mean come from wealthy or prestigous families? Seems as though the tag fits both Pres. G.W. Bush & FDR.

Of course it fits both Bush and FDR...and Kennedy, Bush the first, as opposed to non-blueblood presidents: Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Truman et al.

But the SAT wasn't around when FDR applied for Harvard.

Dom Heffner
01-21-2005, 12:45 AM
He got in with the same score he wanted to deny minorities of using to get into college.

You have to love the guy.

Dom Heffner
01-21-2005, 03:01 AM
Also- no idea what possessed me to mention Cooter's. I was sad to hear it closed down awhile ago.

I remember shooting pool behind the chain link fence and all the ties hanging from the ceiling. And I also remember going to the place across the street....Burgundy's, maybe?????

I had been going there for like a year, then quit for a year and then went back and it had went from a pop/top 40 place to totally rap. I payed 6 bucks to basically go from the entrance straight out the door.

Anyway, happy to please.

RedsBaron
01-21-2005, 08:02 AM
On "legacies," while I understand why colleges have the system so as to increase the chances of getting big donations from alumni, I oppose the "legacies" system for the same reason I opposed certain affirmative action systems-I find both to be fundamentally unfair.
I do not oppose a system of admissions that recognizes that an applicant with a slightly lower SAT or ACT score may deserve a "boost" in the rankings when other factors are considered: For example, did the applicant come from poverty, without all the advantages a wealthy applicant which contributed to the higher score of the richer student? What were the extracurricular activites of the applicant?
I don't support an admission policy whereby say, a weathy applicant with a lower SAT or ACT score is automatically preferred over another applicant solely because he or she is a member of a minority group or because the applicant's father or mother attended the same school.

RedsBaron
01-21-2005, 08:17 AM
On this topic... I am watching a very interesting documentary on the U.S. Presidents (the History Channel). They made mention that FDR was a "C" student at Harvard. I would assume that FDR, the average student, helped gain admission the Ivy League school from the fact that he was the only child of aristocrats. But we all know about FDR the President. Didn't seem to do too bad of a job in the White House!

I am not quite sure what you mean, FCB, by "legacies"? Most 18-year-olds are not legacies. Do you mean come from wealthy or prestigous families? Seems as though the tag fits both Pres. G.W. Bush & FDR.
A great president, or any leader for that matter, doesn't necessarily have to be the smartest person in the room, anymore than a great baseball manager has to have been a great player. To be successful, the chief executive needs to surround himself with talent and have the ability to manage that talent.
George Washington was not as "smart" as Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton, but he put both Jefferson and Hamilton in his cabinet and was a more effective leader than either.
Many, perhaps most, of our presidents who are now regarded as having been effective leaders were never regarded as great intellects, but they had the ability to lead: Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant (more as a general than a president), FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan. Lincoln and Truman are special cases in that their education was limited, but both men seem to me to have been well read and to have had first class minds.
We have had a few presidents who were arguably both intellectuals and effective leaders-for all his bombast, Theodore Roosevelt was well read and a prolific author, and Thomas Jefferson was obviously a genius though his presidency was at best medicore IMO. But many of our presidents who did seem to be the smartest guy in the room had administrations that that were less than roaring successes: John Adams, James Madison, John Qunicy Adams, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, perhaps Woodrow Wilson.

Redsfaithful
01-21-2005, 08:50 AM
Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant (more as a general than a president)

I think you should put the same qualification there for Jackson. Because he was a terrible president.

GAC
01-21-2005, 10:02 AM
Spin it however you want GAC, but a Supreme Court Justices job is to interpret the constitution, not to do what Christianity considers to be God's will.

Not spinning anything. You posted an article where a third person was quoting someone else who says they heard Judge Thomas make this statement. As RB already pointed out... "The reporter did not witness the supposed statement from Justice Thomas. There is accordingly the question of whether or not the quote is accurate, or in proper context."

And yet, I've heard some wild assumptions made by some on here, and simply based on the fact they have ideological differences with the guy (i.e. he is a conservative Christian).

What I'd simply like to know is.... has Judge Thomas, in the function/execution of his job as a Supreme Court judge ever tried to subvert or violate the Constitution of the United States by any of the rulings/judgements that he has rendered in accordance to his Christian faith?

Aren't you kinda jumpin' off the deep end on one singular statement that he may/maynot have made?

All sessions of the Supreme Court are called into session by the Court Clerk with this phrase: "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

Is that unconstitutional?

Have previous Supreme Court Justices made somewhat similar statements?...

First Chief Justice John Jay wrote: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that the rights of American citizens were God given.

Thomas Clark (appointed to the Supreme Court in the late 1940's) wrote: "The Founding Fathers believed devoutly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted not in the state, nor the legislature, nor in any other human power but in God alone."

My point? I don't think that Thomas, if he made this statement, is violating the Constituion any more then some of his predecessors.

Dan
01-21-2005, 10:05 AM
I hear that by the State of the Union address this year that George W. Bush AND Clarence Thomas will both be replaced by Jim Coombs, and that among the lesser goals of his Presidency will be to bring peace to Israel and personally lead a manned mission to Mars.