I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to defend Clarence Thomas

The guy may be the worst Supreme Court Justice ever. But there has been a proliferation of threads lately suggesting that in submitting the nutty birth certificate case to the full court for consideration he was doing something vindictive and unusual.

That's simply wrong. What he did is what any SCOTUS justice would have done under the exact same circumstances. Those circumstances were that the nutjob bringing the case filed an application for emergency stay with one Justice (Souter) and had it declined. Under SCOTUS rules, the nutjob could then go to another justice with the same request (and so on and so on). When that happens, the normal course is for the second justice receiving the application to take it to the full court for resolution. Why? Because otherwise, the nutjob will simply go down the line, justice by justice wasting everyone's time and money. If the nutjob had gone to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the result would've been the same. Indeed, if THomas had a hard on for this case and wanted to do something out of the ordinary, he could have effectively reversed Souter by granting the petition. THat would've been reason to howl.

Now I fully expect to get flamed for this, but one of the things about this place that still distinghishes it from crazy freeperland is that there are posters here that remain interested in making sure that what is posted is accurate, not merely a knee jerk reaction. This is one of those times.

And if you don't believe me on this, I refer you to the author of the leading treatise on Supreme Court practice, who has described the process involved where an emergency stay application is turned down and then resubmitted as follows: "If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution."

http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opinions_v2_scdr3_2004.pdf (at page xi)


THere, that's off my chest. Now I can go back to hating on thomas for the crap he actually does do, not the crap he doesn't do.

...and have bought the freeper notion that there is some substantive action going on here.

If Thomas had any honor and integrity, I might agree with you. But he doesn't - he's a fascist Republican tool.

lol!

if they had been on the receiving end of the re-submitted petition.

Re-submitted or not - the merit of the case is the same, which is non-existent.

and then, if the petitioner persists, the second justice to get the request almost always does what Thomas did -- gives it to the full court so it will be disposed of once and for all.

Its safe to say that if the petition had gone to a justice other than souter first and to souter second, souter would've done the same thing that Thomas did. That is, as my OP spelled out, the way these petitions are handled. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

They don't give a rat's ass about the law or custom or precedent. They installed the criminal bastard Bush in office through extra-legal means, and by God, they'll do everything to stop the legitimately elected Obama from the Presidency.

That's all this is about - keeping the choice of the American people from gaining power.

I've tried to explain on numerous threads why the hysteria was completely unwarranted, but I've given up.

I am wondering what your post contained; were they in regards to the Constitution and Title 8 of the U.S. Code? If so, I too don't see how this case can ever even be considered because of what I have read regarding the Constitution, and Title 8 of the U.S. Code regarding what contitutes a natural-born citizen. Here are some links:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html
(see paragraph A and G of Title 8)

Doesn't the Consitution and Title 8 of the U.S. Code say that if someone is born outside the U.S. and at least one parent is a U.S. citizen who resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years (Obama's mama) considered a U.S. citizen. So if Obama was actually born in Kenya (insane, I know), then he would still be a citizen of the U.S. due to his mother's status. And if born in Hawaii (2 years after it became a state), and his mother is a citizen, he is still a citizen of the U.S. What is the nutjob filing the suit trying to accomplish? Also, if, for some strange reason, it was found that Obama was not eligible to be President, wouldn't Joe Biden then become President?

Also, I am sure that a candidate running for POTUS, is fully vetted (maybe not VP...Palin. But then, they don't vet for stupidity). There was a question regarding McCain's birth place too.

It seems that whenever I read a blog, or news report about this, they always fail to give the correct information about what a natural born citizen is as described in both Title 8 and the Constitution.

BTW: I missed you guys. I had been visiting the forum on Comcast.net. There are just too many repugs, and really stupid ones too!!!

Good for you.

not spending every waking hour on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3630603

Also

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/court-to-weigh-question-about-obama-citizenship/

I totally understand the process in hearing this nutty birth certificate crap. They need to hear it, shoot it down, and set a precedent so that all the other lawsuits for the same fucking thing waiting in the queue can also be shot down. Well, that's a little rough, but basically the gist of it. The ones to blame are the insane freepers who are bleeding our court system with shit that they only need use their fucking brains in order to comprehend.

The guy is a federalist society hack. He wants to have the case heard because he truly believes that Obama is ineligible to be President.

Not synonymous, and no, the federalists most likely do NOT think Obama is ineligible.

The OP is completely correct; this is the way the system works, no matter how nutty the cert petition is.

Thomas could have called for the conference to deal with the petition for the benevolent reason the OP cites, or, because he really believes the case has merit and ought to be heard. We can only guess as to the real motive, but, given Thomas's kooky jurisprudence and ideological wingnuttery, I'm fairly convinced that Thomas really believes in the merits of the case.

"He wants to have the case heard because he truly believes that Obama is ineligible to be President."

And you know this how, exactly?

The OP based his statement on readily available information on what the procedure is for handling certs submitted to the court. That's not mind-reading, that's educating yourself.

So, while its true that I'm not a mind reader, the evidence suggests that he doesn't have the hard on for this case that some are suggesting.

Face it, while CT is a hack and an embarrassment to the court, not everything he does is evil.

cases....

Yes it is nice when posts are accurate. There is so much to get in a spin about that I don't see any point in getting worked up over something that is just flat wrong.

by agreeing to look at it, they can disarm the loonies. Of course, that only holds if the justices agree to shitcan this stuff.

of being a USSC Justice, but the most revealing, at least to me, was during his hearing, when he said he never read the complaint against him, he either had to be a liar, or one of the most unqualified people ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court. I can think of nothing worse than a Judge not reading a complaint before responding in any fashion. It was by far, one of the most ludicrous things I had ever seen.

From that point on, I knew this man was an idiot.

I can understand your explanation, but it would have been far better if another USSC Judge took this matter before the Court, it just showed me that he really is as dumb as a box of rocks. FWIW, he would have been well advised to just let the nutjob continue on down the line, spending cash and making a fool out of himnself...:hi:

And if he had turned it down, the nutjob probably would've gone to scalia next, and then Alito (he wouldn't be able to get to Roberts until he had exhausted all of the other justices). Given standard practice, thomas followed the usual course of practice -- he sent the request to the full court.

would have left him to wither on the vine...but if it brings this silliness to an abrpt end, I'll grudgingly give Thamas credit for killing it off...:hi:

he just followed standard practice, that's all.

I love DU. :hug:


edit: typo

Thomas is a Quisling.

what the second justice almost always does. If the order had been reversed, the result would've been the same, in all likelihood. In fact, if Thomas wante to "run with" the case, he could've granted the application unilaterally. That would've been unusual. The usual course is for the second justice to get an application for emergency relief to refer it to the court so it can be disposed of once and for all. Sorry if that doesn't fit your wishes, but its the way it is.

Flamethrower in the off and secured position.

Darn!


(Thanks to the OP!)

it's not a "normal, usual, routine" case.

So, the OP is technically correct, the posts it responds to are correct in their tenor generally speaking. If you doubt that contemplate for a minute that without Bush v. Gore, we would have missed out on an 8 year Bush presidency (certainly on the first 4 years of it). That's an enormous harm from SCOTUS, and they have an opportunity now again, which they would most likely decline, but it's still news.... !

its being handled the way any case with its procedural posture would be handled.

:D

Makes perfect sense to me.

I'm not particularly worried - the birth certificate myth has been debunked, multiple times. Factcheck.org has examined the real birth certificate, Hawaiian officials have looked at the records and concluded rightly that they're legit, and Obama indeed was born in Hawaii.

The birth certificate thing is nothing but paranoid righttard fucknuttery, and will be shot down soon enough.

But there is one thing.

No matter how "normal" this is or that it is standard operating procedure, it says quite a lot that "Benedict" Thomas is the one to hold a hearing on this matter. Knowing that Thomas has the capacity to either nip this in the bud or prolong this further through his decisions, I will watch with rapt attention of how he treats this case. I will also watch how the others Justices respond in light of what happened with the Bush v. Gore ruling.

The court regularly meets to decide, based on nothing but the written application, whether it should hear cases submitted to it. Many of the petitions are rejected summarily based on the recmmendations of a law clerk assigned to review those papers. However,there are always some petitions that, for various reasons, actually are discussed by the court -- again,not in a hearing setting, but in conference of the justices. This case falls into the latter category. And the reason it does is its unusual procedural posture: it started out as a request for emergency action submitted to one justice, was denied by that justice (as is typical of such requests) and then was resubmitted to another justice, at which point normal operating procedure is for the second justice to refer it to the court for disposition. Thomas' action not only was in keeping with normal operating procedure, it was, in fact, the best way to "nip this in the bud" since his other two choices were to grant the petition or deny it. The former would have been unusual and, of course, unwarranted. The latter would simply have kept the damn thing going, since the nutjob who filed the petition could just move on to another justice (Scalia, for example) with the same request.

However, I still believe that there are decisions to be made. And as you pointed out, Thomas could have made a plethora of decisions of what to do with this petition. If he had decided to toss this out, it would mean so much more than having putting it up for reapplication.

So what if Donofrio pitches it to another SC Justice? Because he has done so, it makes him look bad and a trouble-maker.

Thomas denying Donofrio's petition, would be doing something right, for once.

So, there's nothing neutral about the decisions made leading up to this. With that being said, it says a lot about the Justices who are taking the time to hear this position as much as does for those who tossed it out in the first place.

if they disagree strongly on legal issues. (I'm a non-lawyer SCOTUS junkie.) :hi:

Some folks have short memories, but not me. I am watching this very closely for just the reasons you mentioned.

:thumbsup:

I think they have calibrated that if they overthrow this election, their offices will be overthrown soon thereafter. And hopefully they are right.

Let's get this thing settled now before January. I have little doubt the SC is going to either refuse to hear this argument or at worst let the idiot who's bringing it up do his little song and dance and then toss the case out of court.

After all the hero worship the Freeps gave the Supreme Court in 2000 they'll look like idiots if they lash out at the court this time around strictly because they didn't get their way.

Once this is done any further attempts to push this argument will only make the instigator further look like an idiot and nutcase (not that they don't already).

:kick:

But I still reserve my right to despise Thomas, who is without a doubt the least qualified individual on the SC. And I see that you are reserving yours as well! :fistbump:

The fact that Justice Thomas did one thing right does not make him either sane, good, or intelligent. I shall continue to consider him psychologically imbalanced, predominantly evil, and substantially mentally challenged. You need not don your flame-retardant suit for me.

:dem:

-Laelth

:thumbsup:


I'm in the middle of Jan Greenberg's book about the Supreme Court, and it's fascinating.

Its great to learn something new.

it is truly the best branch of govt even if asswipes like Thomas stain its dignity. (Thanks for the clarification on the standard operating procedures)

and get back to me.... Regardless of whether he was right on this he's still an asshole.

They did't file the application to Souter the first time. They merely filed it with the S.Ct., and it landed on Souter's desk.

THEN they filed the application SPECIFICALLY to a Justice in particular that they felt would be more sympathetic to their application. That would be Clarence Thomas.