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

[Michael Tee]

JSTOR: Clarence Thomas: The Law School Years
There was no class ranking at Yale, an arrangement that, in Professor .... Yale Law School first instituted an affirmative action pro- SPRING 2002 108 ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711(200221)35%3C106%3ACTTLSY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T - Similar pages
=================================================================================
Although the above appears in response to a Google search on "Yale Law School Class of 1974 class rankings" and indicates that there was no class ranking when Thomas graduated, clicking on the link provides only the first page of an article that you must pay for to read.  Nowhere on the first page does the quote about class ranking appear.   I'm prepared to accept that Thomas wasn't ranked.  Still, he won no scholastic awards or distinctions.  Bader made law review at both Columbia and Harvard.

Further evidence of what must have been low class standing or lack of scholastic accomplishment is found in his "15 cent" remark, easily found on dozens of sites through Google.  Thomas claims that affirmative action made his Yale Law degree "worth 15 cents" because white employers turned him down, figuring he wouldn't have had the degree but for affirmative action.  All of the articles referring to Thomas' allegations quote numerous black Yale grads of the period as saying this is bullshit, as they all found jobs.  If white employers were rejecting Thomas, the reasons obviously had little to do with affirmative action.  Probably they would have related to a lack of distinction in his academic career.

[Michael Tee]

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

As I understand the process, any judge can write an opinion of his own, if he or she dissents, and a concurring judge is also free to write his or her own concurring judgment.  At least that is the British system.  I think it's pretty much the same in the U.S.A.  Oliver Wendell Holmes became known as "the great dissenter."   I think that seniority also might have something to do with it, because it seems to me that I read somewhere that in assigning the task of writing judgments, the Chief Justice does take seniority into account.

[Amianthus]

As I understand the process, any judge can write an opinion of his own, if he or she dissents, and a concurring judge is also free to write his or her own concurring judgment.  At least that is the British system.  I think it's pretty much the same in the U.S.A.  Oliver Wendell Holmes became known as "the great dissenter."   I think that seniority also might have something to do with it, because it seems to me that I read somewhere that in assigning the task of writing judgments, the Chief Justice does take seniority into account.

Ok, then we'll need to include all the dissenting and partially dissenting opinions that Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg wrote.

When you include those, the totals become:

Justice Thomas: 374, avg 22.41
Justice Ginsburg: 273, avg 18.33

(Averages use your calculated terms.)

[sirs]

OUCH.....Tee takes yet another to the jaw of reason and reality

[Michael Tee]

<<Ok, then we'll need to include all the dissenting and partially dissenting opinions that Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg wrote.

<<When you include those, the totals become:

<<Justice Thomas: 374, avg 22.41
<<Justice Ginsburg: 273, avg 18.33>>

What is your point?  That Thomas is on the same level as Ginsburg or even superior because the totality of opinions authored by him (including dissents and partial dissents) is greater?  That's absurd. The dissents are non-binding, non-precedent-setting and have none of the weight of the majority opinions, which alone make up the law at any given moment.

Basically, you are creating stats which show that Thomas has expressed his opinion more times than Ginsburg, as if the number of times a person's opinion is expressed were some kind of indicator of the quality of his thought.  Thomas is the court idiot - - not because of how many or how few opinions he has written, but because of his totally undistinguished career and his inability to question counsel from the bench - - but you are trying to leverage the number of times he writes an opinion into evidence of his intellectual superiority over Ginsburg. 

As if an idiot who yells out ten opinions an hour in front of the courthouse is smarter than all the judges inside.

[Amianthus]

What is your point?  That Thomas is on the same level as Ginsburg or even superior because the totality of opinions authored by him (including dissents and partial dissents) is greater?  That's absurd. The dissents are non-binding, non-precedent-setting and have none of the weight of the majority opinions, which alone make up the law at any given moment.

If it's a non issue, why did you bring it up?

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<If it's a non issue, why did you bring it up?>>

It was an afterthought. 

My primary reasons for calling Thomas a buffoon who didn't belong on the Court were, of course, (1) his totally undistinguished (in comparison to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's) record before being appointed to the SCOTUS and (2) his well-known inability to ask questions from the bench during argument.  These two arguments against Thomas have never been satisfactorily answered,  not in this thread anyway.

As an afterthought, because I mistakenly thought Thomas didn't write many opinions, I brought that up as well - - look into the number of opinions - - thinking that Thomas would show up very poorly, writing almost no opinions.  My mistake - - I didn't realize the working of the assignment system whereby the Chief Justice tries to spread the work around, or of the clerking system, whereby even a dummy like Thomas has the use of some pretty bright law clerks who can write up any opinion and make it look good.  So, instead of dealing with the real problems that Thomas has in trying to justify his presence on the court, you prefer to deal exclusively with the basic non-issue (given the structure of the system) of who authors more opinions, as if that had anything to do with the credentials of the justices.

[Amianthus]

As an afterthought, because I mistakenly thought Thomas didn't write many opinions, I brought that up as well - - look into the number of opinions - - thinking that Thomas would show up very poorly, writing almost no opinions.

It's more likely because that's your modus operandi - throw a bunch shit out there and see what sticks.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's more likely because that's your modus operandi - throw a bunch shit out there and see what sticks.>>

No, actually, it's more likely to be an afterthought because that's what it was exactly - - a thought that occurred to me after I had already voiced the major reasons why it was even more than usually asinine for sirs to have tried to make the same accusation (being a lightweight) against Ginsburg that I had just made against Thomas.  The actual wording of my post would have made that pretty clear to anyone with the average high-school grad's ability to read for comprehension:

<<Oh yeah, and I almost forgot.  While you're at it, [i.e. while you're looking up Thomas' puny academic qualifications] look this up:  No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT.  Innarrestin.>>

Since you're so interested in my modus operandi, I guess you won't mind if I look at yours - - bogging down the entire thread in nit-picking inconsequentialities like following up an afterthought in minute detail, hoping that the main thrust of the argument (Thomas' lack of academic qualifications, his inability to engage counsel in debate during argument) just gets lost in the shuffle.  So that the entire issue of Thomas' fitness to serve on the court gets lost in the minutiae of how many opinions he writes, lumping the dissenting and partially dissenting ones in with the majority ones.  Ludicrous.

[Amianthus]

Since you're so interested in my modus operandi, I guess you won't mind if I look at yours - - bogging down the entire thread in nit-picking inconsequentialities like following up an afterthought in minute detail, hoping that the main thrust of the argument (Thomas' lack of academic qualifications, his inability to engage counsel in debate during argument) just gets lost in the shuffle.

Well, actually, it's the only thing you said that wasn't opinion.

After all, his grades and class position were never published, so your assumption that his grades were not good is just that - an assumption. And just because you're a loud mouth who wants to argue with everyone does not mean that every Supreme Court justice must do likewise. There have been other justices that did not talk much during oral arguments before, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. Choosing to spend time in corporate law rather than working at a university is only bad because it's your opinion - there is no requirement for Supreme Court justices to have academic qualification, and again there have been many other justices that did not have them in the past. Your entire argument - after removing the part about number of legal opinions written - is pure speculation. And I take speculation by someone who thinks the laws of thermodynamics are optional with about a fistful of salt.

[Michael Tee]

<<After all, his grades and class position were never published, so your assumption that his grades were not good is just that - an assumption.>>

Like most of my assumptions, pretty well grounded in fact.  The guy never made law review and certainly never attained Ginsburg's later distinctions.  How likely is it that his class standing would have been anywhere near hers?  (Tied for first in class)  The circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it wasn't.

Actually, there is some information out there that he graduated in the middle of his class.  http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=46
Sort of lending a little more credence to my "assumptions" than you'd like to admit.   Again, though, you're obscuring my point - - Ginsburg tied for first in class, Thomas has no such distinction.  Ginsburg was appointed Professor of Law at TWO prestigious Ivy League law schools.  Thomas has no such distinction.  A Supreme Court judge is expected to bring outstanding qualifications with him  The only qualifications Thomas brought were a black skin and the willingness to Tom for The Man.

<<And just because you're a loud mouth who wants to argue with everyone [Thanks!!]  does not mean that every Supreme Court justice must do likewise.>>

Uh, nice diversion, but being a loudmouth wanting to argue with everyone is not a job qualification for Supreme Court justices, and I never claimed that it was.  Focus, Ami, focus.

<< There have been other justices that did not talk much during oral arguments before, and I'm sure there will be more in the future.>>

This is not a case of "not talking much during oral arguments," unfortunately.  It's a case of almost never intervening in them.  A sign of pure intellectual inferiority.

<<Choosing to spend time in corporate law rather than working at a university is only bad because it's your opinion >>

No, actually, it's NOT my opinion - - I never said anything like that.  My point was that a Supreme Court nominee has distinguished himself or herself in the law; as Ginsburg did in the academic field by teaching as a Professor at two Ivy League law schools, by making law review at two Ivy League schools,  by tying for first in her class.  Whatever field Thomas chose to practice in there was no comparable element of distinction or accomplishment other than being picked up by a conservative Republican Congressman (Danforth) presumably for his politically conservative views, and plunked down into a government job of relative mediocrity where he turned in a mediocre performance.  He won his entree into Danforth's world, BTW, by opposing affirmative action for blacks.  Nice.  Not that that was Tommin', of course - - he just honestly happened to come to the conclusion by careful independent thinking that what had proven so beneficial to him as one black from an underprivileged background wouldn't be of any use to any other black from an underprivileged background.  And by some extraordinarycoincidence, it happened to fit in with the way that Danforth and all his racist Republican buds saw things as well.

<<there is no requirement for Supreme Court justices to have academic qualification,>>

No, nor did I ever suggest there was.  The requirement is that the candidate be distinguished in the field of law, academically or some other way.  As a precedent-setting judge,  as a skilled prosecutor with an impressive track record, as the learned author of useful and often-cited textbooks, as skilled counsel in high-profile civil or criminal trials . . .

<<and again there have been many other justices that did not have them in the past.>>

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  As if that's got anything to do with anything . . .  zzzzz, wake me up when this part is finished, please.

<<Your entire argument - after removing the part about number of legal opinions written - is pure speculation.>>

LMFAO.  Yeah, sure.  I SPECULATED that Thomas had achieved nothing of distinction in his entire legal career, despite overwhelming evidence everywhere of his many stellar accomplishments.  I SPECULATED that Ginsburg had tied for first in her class.  I SPECULATED that Ginsberg had distinguished herself further by making law review at both Harvard and Columbia Law Schools.  I SPECULATED further that she had distinguished herself even further by being appointed Professor of Law at two excellent Ivy League Law Schools.  I SPECULATED that the Wikipedia article on Ruth Bader Ginsburg had even more evidence of even further distinctions attained, too numerous to mention here, and I SPECULATED even further that the distinctions attained as reported by Wikipedia were accurate.

I think your arguments are starting to sound more and more like sirs'.  In other words, if I send a post with ten facts in it supporting something I'm arguing, it's almost guaranteed to elicit a post from sirs thanking me for my OPINION and reminding me that it's based on ZERO, ZIP, NULL facts.  Maybe before you start slinging around words like "speculation," you should either (a) re-read the posts you're responding to to check for any supporting facts or (b) check out a good dictionary to see what "speculation" MEANS.

[hnumpah]

The requirement is that the candidate be distinguished in the field of law, academically or some other way.  As a precedent-setting judge,  as a skilled prosecutor with an impressive track record, as the learned author of useful and often-cited textbooks, as skilled counsel in high-profile civil or criminal trials . . .

There is no such requirement.

From the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ? to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; ? to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; ? to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; ? to Controversies between two or more States; ? between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; ? between Citizens of different States; ? between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[Plane]

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.

  Well if you would read the links I included with that post , you would see that his critics in Congress at his confirmation hearings were very dismissive of his abilitys , some bringing up his benefiting from affirmative action , some pointiong out how well he fit steriotype.

  So I will have to say I brought it up , why not?

   This is a good example of Affirmative action haveing a negative consequence , I can't pass that by.

[Amianthus]

Like most of my assumptions, pretty well grounded in fact.  The guy never made law review and certainly never attained Ginsburg's later distinctions.  How likely is it that his class standing would have been anywhere near hers?  (Tied for first in class)  The circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it wasn't.

My grades were excellent (near top) even though I rarely cared about them, but I never made a number of distinctions - mostly because many of those, even those purported to be based on academic achievement, are actually based more on personality. One of the few was being selected to take part in a National Science Foundation project - they selected the top 30 chemistry students in the nation for this project. Most notable about that achievement was that an interview was not needed, selection was based on grades, standardized test scores, and a teacher recommendation. I was not interested in grades, but in learning. I soaked up everything my teachers knew, including a lot that was outside the normal curriculum. One of my physics teachers, for example, was also a licensed locksmith who taught me how to open virtually any lock. After school, I didn't make many distinctions because I wasn't interested in them. I'm still not.

Actually, there is some information out there that he graduated in the middle of his class.  http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=46
Sort of lending a little more credence to my "assumptions" than you'd like to admit.   Again, though, you're obscuring my point - - Ginsburg tied for first in class, Thomas has no such distinction.  Ginsburg was appointed Professor of Law at TWO prestigious Ivy League law schools.  Thomas has no such distinction.  A Supreme Court judge is expected to bring outstanding qualifications with him  The only qualifications Thomas brought were a black skin and the willingness to Tom for The Man.

Yeah, that's an unbiased article. Let's look at the first line: "The most blatant and unashamed African American-hater on the U.S. Supreme Court - and probably on the national scene - is Clarence Thomas, a psychologically damaged ally of the worst sections of the white ruling class." I'm sure they had lots of good things to say about him, not.

Actually, from interviews with other blacks in Justice Thomas' graduating class, we get stories like the one where he took a class from a law professor that every black on campus had been told "hated blacks" and would "fail every black" in his class. Justice Thomas insisted on taking a class with this professor because it dealt with his preference for law later in life (an aspect of corporate law) and he ended up with the highest grade in that professor's class that semester.

So, actually, there is evidence that you are WRONG about his grades.

Oh yeah, as Bear pointed out, there is no requirement for distinction in academia for Supreme Court justices.

[hnumpah]

Oh yeah, as Bear pointed out, there is no requirement for distinction in academia for Supreme Court justices.

Actually, according to Wikipedia:

The Constitution does not require that Supreme Court Justices (or any federal judges) have any particular educational background. However, the majority of the Court's work is not momentous consideration of Constitutional provisions, but rather, unglamorous and dry legal arcana, interpreting minutiae of ERISA, RICO and so on. Consequentially, a legal education has become an unofficial prerequisite to appointment on the Supreme Court. As of 2008, every person who has been nominated to the Court has been an attorney, and nearly two thirds of nominees had previously been judges.

Many of the early Justices were appointed before the advent of modern law schools, and rather than attend a formal program, they "read law" - that is, their legal studies took the form of apprenticeships with more experienced attorneys. The first Justice to be appointed who had attended an actual law school was Levi Woodbury, appointed to the Court in 1846. Woodbury had attended Tapping Reeve Law School in Litchfield, Connecticut, the most prestigious law school in the United States in that day, prior to his admission to the bar in 1812. However, Woodbury did not earn a law degree; Woodbury's successor on the Court, Benjamin Curtis, who received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1832, and was appointed to the Court in 1851, was the first Justice to bear such a credential.