One in a long line of gaffes made by the Veep.

The hearings were never to get at the truth, it was to try just look like they were taking the allegations seriously.

Hill was a joke to them. The 'hearings' only fooled those who thought being harassed is a natural byproduct of having breasts and vagina.

he's one of the least qualified people ever on the court, more of his "experience" was blocking progress as chairman of the eeoc; a respectable bureaucratic position, but hardly the sort of thing one typically looks for in terms of constitutional scholarship.

but instead of focusing on his lack of stature and obvious political credentials (republicans had to look hard to find a reliably conservative black candidate), biden let the whole thing turn into an anita circus.


worse, the whole confirmation became a vote about her, not a vote about him. that is, senators essentially came to see the vote as "if i don't believe thomas is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, i have to give him life tenure on the highest court in the land".

how pathetic. the vote should have been, "can't we find someone who has reasonable experience, at least an appearance of not being politically biased, and doesn't have a cloud of accusations around him?"

Perhaps he is an animatronic robot put there by Disney.

Just kidding.

Remember the quote attributed to Lincoln?

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."

A beautiful illustration of how the court is divided.

I have lurked here since forever, and never had the nerve to post. So this is my first post. I want to use it to thank everyone on this board for all of the insight and just plain fun they've given me.

Now, about Justice Thomas. I've practiced law for 21 years -- in various state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. All I can say is the same thing my first-year torts instructor told me -- the judge is the 400-pound gorilla in the room. The judge can ask -- or not ask -- anything he or she wants to ask. It is not a reliable indication of a judge's preparation or skill or knowledge to point to the number or quality of the questions he or she asks. The judge is not in the question-asking business -- particularly at the appellate level.

Wow. My heart is racing. I do want to be part of your group and I hope my message hasn't offended anyone and that I can post more thoughts here. I truly appreciate the passion and sincerity of the people here.

... and thank you for sharing your perspective. You have, with your very first post, become part of what makes this forum useful and enlightening.

I'm no lawyer, and I admit the idea you've put forth had not occurred to me. Why would Justice Thomas' lack of posing questions be unusual in your opinion?

Thanks!

I don't know if I'll ever have the wherewithal to weigh in on the Warren/Clinton thing, but I do like DU and would like to comment on the few things I do know about.

Now, as to Justices and questions . . . . All the justices' opinions are at scotusblog.com or at your library. I know that interns write most of that, but I also know that the justices really do look at what's published. If you read the opinions by Ginsberg, Alito -- or just go back to Justice Hand or Justice Warren -- you see really well-written opinions by scholars. It is, in my most humble opinion, demeaning to our institutions -- the very institutions that pioneered the right to reproductive choice and others -- to say that, because this justice is conservative or that justice is black or that justice is liberal -- everything they write is junk. I just disagree with that. I guess I have more faith in the courts.

I guess what makes Thomas' reticence seem unusual is that SCOTUS does seem to quiz frequently. And 9 years is a long time to not have a single question on so many cases.

His ties to Alito's stances causes one to wonder if Thomas feels he's a bit of a 'side kick' to A.

Of course, I could just be looking f/ things to disparage him. I listened to most of his confirmation hearings at the time and was livid at Hill's treatment and dismissal. Thomas' ethical lapses have continued throughout his tenure. His lack of concern over conflict of interest mirrors that of Alito & Scalia.

I would like to know if he bothers to opine among other justices when they discuss cases.

Sorry if I went rampant on your last post. It was the usual problem of posting and not reading. Anyway . . .

To get to your question about why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions. Here's my response: It isn't unusual. Judges do that.

WELCOME TO DU! Or, rather, welcome to participating in DU.

Stop apologizing. You have opinions based on years of legal experience. That's valuable to the discussion. So chime in, please. We're better when we learn from each other.

Welcome to DU!

Thanks! I appreciate it!

Sometimes like being in court, but without rules or civility. Glad to have you join us.

I've seen that. You people terrify me. But, I like the political bent.

Court of the United States. "??

DUers are more scary than courts, judges, state, federal, SCOTUS?

Says battled-hardened veteran of Palestine/ Israel and Presidential Primary forums.

Since the Supreme Court isn't making decisions of the guilt or innocent type, but is deciding how a law should be applied in a certain situation. The Justices owe it to the public to beat the arguments to death because their final opinions will affect not just those involved in the case at hand, but untold others. I want my Justices to be curious. I've never witnessed how the court works, but I "assume" the justices are the only ones doing any cross examination. Am I correct? How can an individual not have a question about these cases? Even one question!

I've always heard called 800lb. gorillas). I do think it says something about Thomas' character that he not only disdains taking part in any oral interaction with counsel but he often appears to be 'resting his eyes' on the bench. Call it lack of interest, call it antipathy for the judicial system, call it what you will, it doesn't further the public's confidence in the courts.

And thank you for your insight into something that most of us couldn't possibly know about.

I'm genuinely curious--isn't it kind of weird that NINE YEARS have gone by in which he didn't want some tiny kind of clarification? But I will also admit that I don't like him.

and remember, the worst we can do to you is call you names.

Poopyhead.

And now that you've had the worst happen, you can be less nervous about posting.

speaking and asking questions".

And humanity. That is all.

speak out and remove all doubt.

What Tony said.