The 2nd Amendment Lives! Shot Heard Round The World. FREEDOM WINS.

[sirs]

MT:  <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement.  Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty.  And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic,>>


sirs:  <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it?  That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>.  Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. >>
========================================================================
RUTH BADER GINSBURG (please note spelling of last name)
from Wikipedia....Your turn, Mr. Big Mouth:  CLARENCE THOMAS . . .

Let's take note...and count.  Tee, who routinely demonizes Senator McCain's name in type, has an apparent small hissy fit for sirs daring to mistype 1 letter in Justice GinsbUrgs name. 

Then posts largely a legal resume' of Ginsberg, as if Justice Thomas was the hall janitor when he was nominated for a Supreme Court Justice position.  Apparently missing the fact he had gone to Yale Law School, received his Juris Doctorate, (ironically wasn't considered as valid as other degrees, because he supposedly was only admitted via Affirmative Action.)

He did manage to post positions as an Assistant AG of Missouri, as Assistant Secretary of Education for the office of Civil Rights, Chairman of the EEOC, & presided as a Justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.  HARDLY disqualifying

All of which of course is moot to Tee, as he's already racially castigated the man as an Uncle Tom moron, not fit to sit the bench....in other words, damn any facts to his already made up mind of what is, is

Then for good masure, throws a personal insult at sirs

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot.  While you're at it, look this up:  No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT.  Innarrestin.

I saw......thanks to Ami.  Didn't realize Thomas had actually authored more opinions than Ginsbarg.  And she's been on the bench.........how many more years?



-----------------------------------------------------
As corrected by Fat, Thomas has appropriately authored more opinions that Ginsborg, having been on SCOTUS longer

[fatman]

I saw......thanks to Ami.  Didn't realize Thomas had actually authored more opinions than Ginsbarg.  and she's been on the bench.........how many more years?

I think Thomas has been on the bench longer, at least as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.  Thomas was a Bush HW appointee, Ginsburg was added by Clinton.

[sirs]

I sit corrected.  Thanks Fat.






"Probably" will buy dinner if we come to Seattle?    ;-)

[fatman]

"Probably" will buy dinner if we come to Seattle?    ;-)

Depends on where you want to go, if you want to go to the Met, you're on your own 

The elegant 50-foot black marble bar is a favorite gathering place. Local stockbrokers, bankers and sports celebrities mingle under televisions that keep guests up to date on the stock market's ups and downs and the fate of Seattle's sports teams. Martinis are the specialty and the Smoky Met Martini, the reigning champion of Seattle's Martini Classic, is a favorite.

The Metropolitan Grill

[sirs]

Another motivator to come visit the great northwest.  Place looks awesome

I ALMOST went to work in Yakima, about 10years ago.  I ALMOST went on a Golf Vacation in Northwest Seattle.......Port...something.  I still plan on getting up there someday.  I'll endeavor to give you a ring      

[Plane]

   Clairance Thomas without question benefited from some affirmative action programs, surpriseing tho who you see useing this fact as dismissive of his abilitys.

      



http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas/

http://justicethomas.tripod.com/id4.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29332.html<excelent emotinal article excerpt below>

The effect of stereotypes on blacks is a sense of being unseen, as in Ralph Ellison?s Invisible Man. The effect on whites is the corollary: They do not perceive blacks as real or make the same fine discriminations among blacks that they habitually make among whites. In the last analysis, they do not perceive black individuals; they perceive black skins. And this remains true at every step of the continuum.

One of the major reasons for the persistent problem is that millions of white adult Americans define "racism" as its most pathological manifestations: wearing white gowns and hoods, burning crosses, tarring and feathering blacks, hunting them down with dogs. Because those same millions of white Americans would not dream of committing such atrocities; because they vote for political representatives who pass civil-rights bills; because they applauded Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall; because they respect the changing nomenclature by which certain blacks wish to be addressed, they imagine themselves to be free of racism.

What they have never learned is that racism is an idea, a very old and intransigent idea. That idea exists on an unbroken continuum -- all the way from a form that is fully conscious to a form that is unconscious. Its manifestations can range from the most grossly offensive and scornful invective to a compulsive noblesse oblige that cannot permit itself to make any criticisms at all. But whatever the degree or kind of racism, it invariably contains a double standard: The racist simply does not treat black individuals the same way he treats whites.


.........................................................................................

The tale that Thomas himself told was accurate, and he told it with justified pride. It was the compulsive and wide-eyed gushing over it by the senators that was counterfeit and tacitly offensive to blacks. Thomas was scarcely the first small-town boy from the South to have achieved an important measure of success in the United States, and it was both patronizing and hypocritical to celebrate him as though he were. But that was just a symptom of a deeper hypocrisy: Few, if anyone at all, on the Senate committee, plus its legions of staff "researchers," actually cared a fig about Thomas? background or "roots."

The roots of an American black are not to be found in the town in which he was born or reared. They are plunged deep in the dark loam of slavery and its ongoing and unfinished business of institutionalized racism. No senator, and apparently no staffer, even considered for a moment investigating Thomas? real roots or his real struggle with American racism.

They should have done so, for the same reasons they should not have evaded one of their major political problems and buried it in legalized abortion. Because they all knew that white racism, both of the deeply entrenched kind and of a reactive, defensive kind, was exploding all about them in workplaces, in schools, and in police departments in response to double-standard affirmative action; because it was an issue that in one form or another might come before the Court; because it was an issue about which the nominee had thought deeply for most of his life -- and because it was an issue that was affecting, must be affecting, the real black man sitting before them.

Except...the subject for the Democrats was taboo. And Clarence Thomas wasn?t real to the Senate Judiciary Committee: He was a black pawn in their evasive political chess game; he was a collection of stereotypes. So no one, apparently, thought of doing some research on what really lay behind all the mutually congratulatory, intensely "caring" backslapping about Clarence Thomas? roots.

.......................................................

But these are questions, or speculations, one raises about a man -- and Thomas was not a man to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both the men on the committee who were hurled into panic by new ideas and the men on the committee who were hurled into panic by all ideas asked no such questions and gained no such insights. They had lost all contact with the human being they were "judging."

They didn?t even know that he was judging them. They didn?t notice that his eyes, once twinkling, had become dark and impenetrable, that his once spontaneous laugh had vanished, and that he now smiled through tightly clenched teeth, with the muscles in his jaws working tensely beneath the surface of his skin. They didn?t even realize that Clarence Thomas was terribly, terribly angry.

[Michael Tee]

<<surpriseing tho who you see useing this fact [he got into Yale through affirmative action] as dismissive of his abilitys.>>

Oh, who would that be?  Who in this forum used Thomas' free ride on affirmative actions as dismissive of his abilities?  For that matter, who was the first person in this thread to even raise the issue of affirmative action?

Thomas' intrinsic lack of ability stands on its own.  It's all the evidence anyone needs to portray him as the court buffoon that he is.  The one guy who doesn't belong there.  Sirs' pathetic attempts to buff up his  credentials with a list of his meagre "accomplishments" was an embarrassment - - the phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind - - and all the more so when compared with the list of Ginsburg's credentials.  A guy who barely scrapes through law school is compared with a student who tied for first in her class, made the Law Reviews at TWO Ivy League law schools and then served as Professor of Law at two Ivy League Law Schools.

Yet sirs calls Ginsburg the court clown, not Thomas. 

Keep on diggin' sirs.  You're doing just great!

BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of.  I really don't know what you are talking about.

[Amianthus]

BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of.  I really don't know what you are talking about.

You don't consider calling him "Mr. Big Mouth" to be an insult?

Or did another personality shoot that through just as you were getting ready to post, unbeknown to you?

[Amianthus]

A guy who barely scrapes through law school is compared with a student who tied for first in her class, made the Law Reviews at TWO Ivy League law schools and then served as Professor of Law at two Ivy League Law Schools.

Please provide support for your claim that Thomas "barely scraped through law school" - he did, after all, go to an Ivy League Law School.

[sirs]

Thomas' intrinsic lack of ability stands on its own.  It's all the evidence anyone needs to portray him as the court buffoon that he is.  A guy who barely scrapes through law school

Which again is.....................what again??   Again, damn any of the qualifying facts to the contrary

The one guy who doesn't belong there. 

Based on.........?   What are these mandated requirements to be Supreme Court Justice that Thomas has not attained?  Please, share for the class FACTS, and not just your racist Uncle Tom say so 

Yet sirs calls Ginsburg the court clown, not Thomas. 

Naaaaa.  If you had been paying attention, I was only demonstrating the piss poor lack of credibility your accusation aimed at Thomas had, and twisted double standard regarding 5-4 decisions

BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of.  I really don't know what you are talking about.

Oh of course not.  Big mouth is such an enduring term around here       

[Michael Tee]

"Mr. Big Mouth" was intended as a challenge to a guy who makes accusations he can't back up.  I called Thomas the moron or buffoon of the court, something I was prepared to back up and did.  Sirs turned the tables, or thought he did, by making the exact same charges against Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  To level a charge like that against Clarence Thomas is akin to saying that Jimmy Jones, who is failing ninth grade math for the third time, is not going to win the Nobel Prize in Physics.  To level the same charge against Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as sirs attempted to do, takes some God-damn fucking nerve.  So I challenged him on that:  "All right, Mr. Big Mouth" was intended to signify that sirs has a big mouth, i.e. makes baseless and ridiculous charges that he doesn't have a hope in hell of substantiating.  Sirs chose to take that as a personal insult, although it certainly wasn't intended to be one.  But since he took offence at it, I apologize to him.

As I said previously, a list of the pathetically meagre accomplishments of Clarence Thomas (compared to the stellar legal career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg) make it obvious to any impartial observer which one of them is worthy to serve on SCOTUS and which one isn't.  "Barely scraped through" just refers to the totally undistinguished circumstances in which Thomas was awarded his degree, in comparison to Ginsburg, who tied for first in her class.  As further evidence of legal scholarship, Ginsburg served as Professor of Law at two distinguished Ivy League Universities, where all that Thomas can point to is that he found a job as prosecutor and never fucked up badly enough to get fired.  Got appointed to a few Federal jobs, one on the bench, undoubtedly as a result of his Tommin', given that he was appointed by a Republican administration which has no use for outspoken black men and squeaked through his confirmation hearing (as opposed to Ginsburg, who garnered 97 votes out of 100) with what is probaby the lowest margin ever accorded to a SCOTUS judge.

And I'm still waiting for plane to figure out who it was in this thread who raised the affirmative action issue first in here, and who if anyone had held it against Thomas.  That'll be interesting.

[sirs]

"Mr. Big Mouth" was intended as a challenge to a guy who makes accusations he can't back up.  I called Thomas the moron or buffoon of the court, something I was prepared to back up and did. 

With WHAT??  That's the point, you've backed up your accusation with ZIP.  PLEASE, SHARE.  More authored opinions than Ginsborg, more even in this last Supreme Court session, has not sided with Scalia on every opinion, contrary to the asanine allegations he's Scalia's pet.  Show us how he's so much the baffoon as you claim.  FACTS please, and not your continued opinionated drivel

[Amianthus]

"Barely scraped through" just refers to the totally undistinguished circumstances in which Thomas was awarded his degree, in comparison to Ginsburg, who tied for first in her class.

Perhaps you can let us know what position Thomas graduated from Yale.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . .you've backed up your accusation with ZIP.  PLEASE, SHARE.  >>

Sure.  Just read the posts I already wrote.  Does "Professor of Law" mean anything to you?  Does "tied for first in class?"  Thomas has NOTHING to compare to those accomplishments that would qualify him for the SCOTUS bench.  None of his Federal Appeal Court decisions were noteworthy.

<<More authored opinions than Ginsborg, more even in this last Supreme Court session . . .>>

That's total bullshit, I already demonstrated in a previous post that Thomas was on the bench longer, which is the only reason he wrote more opinions, also I showed that when the total number of opinions were averaged over time on the bench, it was Ginsburg who had the higher average output, not Thomas.

<< . . .has not sided with Scalia on every opinion, contrary to the asanine allegations he's Scalia's pet. >>

That's a meaningless allegation, it's just ridiculous.  Nobody claimed he sided 100% with Scalia.  If you want to use independence from Scalia as a measure of his ability to think for himself, show us on what percentage of Scalia's opinions, Thomas concurred. 

<<Show us how he's so much the baffoon as you claim.  >>

You mean, as in "What's this pubic hair doing in my Coke can?"  He's a buffoon in comparison to the other judges, all of whom have credentials in legal scholarship that put his two-bit record to shame.  He just doesn't belong on that bench.

<<FACTS please, and not your continued opinionated drivel>>

He has no outstanding accomplishments to justify his presence on that bench.  Ginsburg, by contrast, has stellar accomplishments.  I demonstrated hers, you demonstrated the lack of his.  If you can't see the difference between his accomplishments and hers, I can't help you.  Sorry.  But every other judge on that bench will have accomplishments that outshine Thomas' in the same way that Ginsburg's do.  You chose Ginsburg for comparative purposes, I didn't.  I won, you lost on that one.  I don't propose to write a resume for every remaining judge on the bench for you.  If you can find ONE judge on the SCOTUS whose accomplishments are as unimpressive as Thomas', let me know.  Otherwise, I took up the challenge you provided to me, I showed you the huge difference between Ginsburg's credentials and your man's and as far as I can see, that is a challenge that you have just lost.  Big-time.  I'm satisfied.

[Amianthus]

That's total bullshit, I already demonstrated in a previous post that Thomas was on the bench longer, which is the only reason he wrote more opinions, also I showed that when the total number of opinions were averaged over time on the bench, it was Ginsburg who had the higher average output, not Thomas.

But you have not factored in how many times Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas have been in the majority, therefore allowing them the chance to write more opinions.

After all, the majority side does not ask a dissenting or partially dissenting justice to write their decision for them.