- This topic has 140 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2008 at 1:55 AM #214744May 31, 2008 at 2:28 AM #214590
Dukehorn
ParticipantMaybe you can replace Clarence Thomas with Colin Powell and you might have an argument there.
Thomas’ career before his appellate appointment by Bush I was as a pretty piss poor politico. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights? Chairman of the EEOC? Can I yawn even more about what kind of legal skills those positions take. If you want to compare Thomas to Chief Justice Roberts (who was acclaimed by my fellows on the bar as one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court of this generation), he’s pure chaff.
Thomas is pretty silent during oral arguments and his SC opinions are pretty mediocre. Maybe he does believe oral arguments are unnecessary (as one of his biographers suggested), I just don’t think he’s an intellectual heavyweight compared with his peers. He wasn’t a powerhouse private practice attorney, never taught at a prestigious law school and never held legal positions as a US Attorney or with the DOJ. His resume is definitely (by a large margin) the poorest of any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court.
How about that psuedo (sic) ad hominen argument?
May 31, 2008 at 2:28 AM #214668ParticipantMaybe you can replace Clarence Thomas with Colin Powell and you might have an argument there.
Thomas’ career before his appellate appointment by Bush I was as a pretty piss poor politico. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights? Chairman of the EEOC? Can I yawn even more about what kind of legal skills those positions take. If you want to compare Thomas to Chief Justice Roberts (who was acclaimed by my fellows on the bar as one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court of this generation), he’s pure chaff.
Thomas is pretty silent during oral arguments and his SC opinions are pretty mediocre. Maybe he does believe oral arguments are unnecessary (as one of his biographers suggested), I just don’t think he’s an intellectual heavyweight compared with his peers. He wasn’t a powerhouse private practice attorney, never taught at a prestigious law school and never held legal positions as a US Attorney or with the DOJ. His resume is definitely (by a large margin) the poorest of any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court.
How about that psuedo (sic) ad hominen argument?
May 31, 2008 at 2:28 AM #214693ParticipantMaybe you can replace Clarence Thomas with Colin Powell and you might have an argument there.
Thomas’ career before his appellate appointment by Bush I was as a pretty piss poor politico. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights? Chairman of the EEOC? Can I yawn even more about what kind of legal skills those positions take. If you want to compare Thomas to Chief Justice Roberts (who was acclaimed by my fellows on the bar as one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court of this generation), he’s pure chaff.
Thomas is pretty silent during oral arguments and his SC opinions are pretty mediocre. Maybe he does believe oral arguments are unnecessary (as one of his biographers suggested), I just don’t think he’s an intellectual heavyweight compared with his peers. He wasn’t a powerhouse private practice attorney, never taught at a prestigious law school and never held legal positions as a US Attorney or with the DOJ. His resume is definitely (by a large margin) the poorest of any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court.
How about that psuedo (sic) ad hominen argument?
May 31, 2008 at 2:28 AM #214718ParticipantMaybe you can replace Clarence Thomas with Colin Powell and you might have an argument there.
Thomas’ career before his appellate appointment by Bush I was as a pretty piss poor politico. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights? Chairman of the EEOC? Can I yawn even more about what kind of legal skills those positions take. If you want to compare Thomas to Chief Justice Roberts (who was acclaimed by my fellows on the bar as one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court of this generation), he’s pure chaff.
Thomas is pretty silent during oral arguments and his SC opinions are pretty mediocre. Maybe he does believe oral arguments are unnecessary (as one of his biographers suggested), I just don’t think he’s an intellectual heavyweight compared with his peers. He wasn’t a powerhouse private practice attorney, never taught at a prestigious law school and never held legal positions as a US Attorney or with the DOJ. His resume is definitely (by a large margin) the poorest of any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court.
How about that psuedo (sic) ad hominen argument?
May 31, 2008 at 2:28 AM #214749ParticipantMaybe you can replace Clarence Thomas with Colin Powell and you might have an argument there.
Thomas’ career before his appellate appointment by Bush I was as a pretty piss poor politico. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights? Chairman of the EEOC? Can I yawn even more about what kind of legal skills those positions take. If you want to compare Thomas to Chief Justice Roberts (who was acclaimed by my fellows on the bar as one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court of this generation), he’s pure chaff.
Thomas is pretty silent during oral arguments and his SC opinions are pretty mediocre. Maybe he does believe oral arguments are unnecessary (as one of his biographers suggested), I just don’t think he’s an intellectual heavyweight compared with his peers. He wasn’t a powerhouse private practice attorney, never taught at a prestigious law school and never held legal positions as a US Attorney or with the DOJ. His resume is definitely (by a large margin) the poorest of any of the folks currently on the Supreme Court.
How about that psuedo (sic) ad hominen argument?
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM #214610Casca
ParticipantI’m content with a man who is not carried away by flights of fancy sitting on the court. There are far too many of those. Thomas is a decent and honest man, and how few there are of these in your profession.
Rice a liar? In a bit over her head perhaps, but a giant compared to the dwarfs of the previous administration.
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM #214686ParticipantI’m content with a man who is not carried away by flights of fancy sitting on the court. There are far too many of those. Thomas is a decent and honest man, and how few there are of these in your profession.
Rice a liar? In a bit over her head perhaps, but a giant compared to the dwarfs of the previous administration.
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM #214711ParticipantI’m content with a man who is not carried away by flights of fancy sitting on the court. There are far too many of those. Thomas is a decent and honest man, and how few there are of these in your profession.
Rice a liar? In a bit over her head perhaps, but a giant compared to the dwarfs of the previous administration.
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM #214737ParticipantI’m content with a man who is not carried away by flights of fancy sitting on the court. There are far too many of those. Thomas is a decent and honest man, and how few there are of these in your profession.
Rice a liar? In a bit over her head perhaps, but a giant compared to the dwarfs of the previous administration.
May 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM #214768ParticipantI’m content with a man who is not carried away by flights of fancy sitting on the court. There are far too many of those. Thomas is a decent and honest man, and how few there are of these in your profession.
Rice a liar? In a bit over her head perhaps, but a giant compared to the dwarfs of the previous administration.
May 31, 2008 at 10:34 AM #214665equalizer
ParticipantDH,
You are right, but you help make another point that rep party know how to get things done. Some could say that Thomas is least qualified person on court in ages. However, the attacks on him are becuase he is a clone of Scalia, not because he is underqualified. That is not allowed in our PC world. I agree that Roberts and Alito have produced surprising opinions, not just more clones of Scalia, but real leadership from Roberts. It’s amazing the number of 7-2 decisions on the court. Scalia and Thomas may be so far removed from reality that they could never get elected.
As a side note, there’s Judge Posner who states some bizarre opinions, but is a brilliant anti-trust/economic scholar, powerhouse author. Someone that both parties would hate, which would probably be good for the country.
May 31, 2008 at 10:34 AM #214743ParticipantDH,
You are right, but you help make another point that rep party know how to get things done. Some could say that Thomas is least qualified person on court in ages. However, the attacks on him are becuase he is a clone of Scalia, not because he is underqualified. That is not allowed in our PC world. I agree that Roberts and Alito have produced surprising opinions, not just more clones of Scalia, but real leadership from Roberts. It’s amazing the number of 7-2 decisions on the court. Scalia and Thomas may be so far removed from reality that they could never get elected.
As a side note, there’s Judge Posner who states some bizarre opinions, but is a brilliant anti-trust/economic scholar, powerhouse author. Someone that both parties would hate, which would probably be good for the country.
May 31, 2008 at 10:34 AM #214766ParticipantDH,
You are right, but you help make another point that rep party know how to get things done. Some could say that Thomas is least qualified person on court in ages. However, the attacks on him are becuase he is a clone of Scalia, not because he is underqualified. That is not allowed in our PC world. I agree that Roberts and Alito have produced surprising opinions, not just more clones of Scalia, but real leadership from Roberts. It’s amazing the number of 7-2 decisions on the court. Scalia and Thomas may be so far removed from reality that they could never get elected.
As a side note, there’s Judge Posner who states some bizarre opinions, but is a brilliant anti-trust/economic scholar, powerhouse author. Someone that both parties would hate, which would probably be good for the country.
May 31, 2008 at 10:34 AM #214793ParticipantDH,
You are right, but you help make another point that rep party know how to get things done. Some could say that Thomas is least qualified person on court in ages. However, the attacks on him are becuase he is a clone of Scalia, not because he is underqualified. That is not allowed in our PC world. I agree that Roberts and Alito have produced surprising opinions, not just more clones of Scalia, but real leadership from Roberts. It’s amazing the number of 7-2 decisions on the court. Scalia and Thomas may be so far removed from reality that they could never get elected.
As a side note, there’s Judge Posner who states some bizarre opinions, but is a brilliant anti-trust/economic scholar, powerhouse author. Someone that both parties would hate, which would probably be good for the country.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.