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

[Amianthus]

Frankly, I'm surprised, but  I am sure if you look at almost all of Thomas' opinions, they are nothing more than dressed up ways of saying "I concur with______" whereas Ginsburg's would tend, as a former member of TWO Ivy League law school reviews, to be original works of legal scholarship.  She'd have no need to dress up a simple concurrence.  In any event, a detailed comparison of the two point-by-point as I suggested would easily reveal which one is the judicial scholar and which one is the clown.

Concurrences have been removed from that list. When you add concurrences, you arrive at:

Justice Thomas: 231
Justice Ginsburg: 191

[Michael Tee]

Where are you getting this stuff from?

[Amianthus]

Cornell Univ tracks decisions written differently from concurrences.

[Michael Tee]

I hope you realize the difference between a concurrence and an opinion is very subjective unless the author is honest enough to keep a concurrence short and sweet.  "I concur with Joe" is unambiguous.  A clown like Thomas could easily pad out a concurrence so that it looks like an opinion (or more likely ask his clerk to do it for him in a more or less diplomatic way) and you will have an opinion that is really a concurrence.

Just how deeply does Cornell go into stuff like that anyway?  And where is the link to the Cornell study?

[Stray Pooch]

Cornell Univ tracks decisions written differently from concurrences.

Oh yeah, well, Cornell.  Like THEY'RE a reputable, credible university or something . . .

I was worried, given the close split in the court, that the libs might win this one like they did the Property Rights Revocation and Child Rapists Right To Life decisions.

Thank God (while we still can legally) that the court made this decision while people who believe the constitution actually means something are still around.  At least the precedent is in there now.  ('Course that doesn't mean a liberal majority will respect it.)

[Amianthus]

Just how deeply does Cornell go into stuff like that anyway?  And where is the link to the Cornell study?

It's the Law School that does it. It's not a study, it's a list of decisions, who wrote them, whether or not they were concurrences, etc. I'm sure it's maintained by law students as part of their studies.

[Michael Tee]

Yeah, but what is the STANDARD by which they call something a concurrence or not?  And where is the link to the source?

[Amianthus]

Yeah, but what is the STANDARD by which they call something a concurrence or not?  And where is the link to the source?

You'll have to talk with the Constitutional Law professors that oversee it.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?ginsburg
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas

[Michael Tee]

Well, thanks for the link.  It was kinda surprising to see Thomas wrote so many opinions.  Considering he was appointed to the bench earlier than Ginsburg, he actually puts out fewer opinions per year than she does,

RBG   10-Aug-93   27-Jun-08   14.8904           124       8.33
CT   23-Oct-91   27-Jun-08    16.6904    131      7.85
 
above being a little spreadsheet calculation I made, based on (left to right) judge, appointment, present date, years on the bench, no. of decisions and finally the average yearly output.

Ginsburg 8.33 per year, Thomas 7.85; Thomas can only put out 95% of Ginsburg's output.  I'm sure if there were a means to measure quality instead of quantity, you'd see the real gap in brainpower start to manifest itself.  The opinions, of course, can be written by highly qualified clerks, no one knowing the difference.

I did show many other areas in which Ginsburg could be compared to Thomas for the purpose of determining whether sirs is correct in calling Ginsburg the clown on the bench or whether I (and many others) are correct in pinning the clown suit on Thomas.  Neither sirs nor anyone else from the lunatic rightwing fringe has seen fit to respond.
 
I returned to this post to modify it by bringing the cells in the spreadsheet more into line vertically, but when I came back here they WERE all in line.  Something jigs them out of line when the message is posted.  Sorry.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Maybe if the NRA could call for an attack and just wound Cheney a little, it could lift our spirits"

Wow more words of wisdom from the resident hatemonger kook.
Now he calls for/implies shooting the Vice President of the United States.
This week alone those that arrive at a different conclusion are "assholes", "jerks" & now should be shot.
Oh but wait a minute Rich is the bad guy kook. 

[Amianthus]

Ginsburg 8.33 per year, Thomas 7.85; Thomas can only put out 95% of Ginsburg's output.

You must fully concur with the majority to write the decision; Justice Ginsburg is in that position more often than Justice Thomas, so therefore she has more opportunity to write the decision. To get a real stat, you'd need to adjust for the times when Justice Thomas was only partially concurring with the majority (ie, he agreed with the decision but disagreed with some of the legal principles - he wrote more of those than Ginsburg did as well, IIRC).

[Michael Tee]

Actually, I just extrapolated from something I read, that Thomas almost never asks questions during argument, most likely from a well-founded fear of embarrassing himself.  I just figured it would translate into not writing many original opinions, forgetting that the Chief Justice assigns the writing of the opinion after everyone's kicked the case around and they all know what the result is going to be, both for unanimous and for split decisions - - and that Thomas would have to come in for his fair share of assignments and anyway that they can be written by a clerk.  So THAT dog won't hunt.

[Lanya]

We will all be freer and able to overthrow the government now that we can all be armed and dangerous.

That's exactly why I cheer this decision.  I want to be able to buy the same weapons Blackwater/military has.
This is why we have this right in the first place, isn't it? So we may overthrow a despot?

[Amianthus]

Actually, I just extrapolated from something I read, that Thomas almost never asks questions during argument, most likely from a well-founded fear of embarrassing himself.

I don't find it well-founded. When he's asked questions in the past many analysts have said that they were very clear, cogent, and relevant questions. Justice Thomas has said that written arguments should suffice. Most other appeals courts rely almost entirely on written arguments as well.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't find it well-founded. When he's asked questions in the past many analysts have said that they were very clear, cogent, and relevant questions. >>

I've never seen any critique of the few questions he did ask.  Most of the commentary on his performance mentions that he hardly asks any questions at all.  The other judges pepper counsel with questions as they are making their argument.  That's true of any appellate court, not just the SCOTUS.  It's a natural thing to do and it's helpful both to judges (in clarifying the points being argued and counsel's position on them) and to counsel (in giving them a window into the judge's thinking.)

<<Justice Thomas has said that written arguments should suffice.>>

I see.  So he's found the right way and all the other judges have found the wrong way.

<< Most other appeals courts rely almost entirely on written arguments as well.>>

I don't know of any that have ruled out oral argument, though some have placed time limits on it.  Whenever oral argument does occur, most judges will leap in.  Thomas won't.