Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Move Over, Long Dong Silver...
...and let Gary
Cooper take over!
Reader Marcus Barum sends along a link to this ABC News story about Jeffrey Toobin's new book on the Supreme Court, Under the Robes. Here's a snippet:
Thomas has such a libertarian view of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution that he prepares his new clerks by requiring them to watch the 1949 movie version of Ayn Rand's classic homage to individualism, "The Fountainhead."
reason interviewed Thomas back in 1987.
Edith Efron's great 1992 psycho-social profile of Thomas was a finalist for a National Magazine Award.
In 2005, lefty law prof and Supreme Court historian Mark Tushnet had good things to say about Thomas in reason.
IMDB page on The Fountainhead.
Wikipedia on Long Dong Silver.
|9.7.07 @ 6:18PM|#
I almost snortedmy milk through my nose laughing at the notion
that someone - anyone - thinks Clarence Thomas is libertarian
anything.
As for Edith Efron's profile it is indeed interesting and worthy of
every praise.
One omission, however is the simple fact that during his
confirmation hearings, Thomas did not present very well.
In fact, in both statements and writings from SCOTUS, he is - and
has always been - downright anemic.
I've never liked Thomas for number of reasons.His one redeeming
attribute is that he's not as big a prick as Scalia.
Then again...maybe he is. Bigger even.
SIV|9.7.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Why the hate for Thomas from the liberaltarians?
4 more Justices of similar views would be better than President Ron
Paul.
|9.7.07 @ 6:31PM|#
If only Thomas was libertarian when it counted.
What are you referring to? He voted our way on both Gonzales v
Raich and Kelo v New London.
If you've got a problem, it should be with the craven liberal
justices who cast their votes for statism in those cases.
Franklin Harris|9.7.07 @ 6:38PM|#
I hope Thomas likes all of the rough sex in Rand's novels. It's the only way I see him voting the right way on the Alabama sex-toy ban, assuming the court even takes the case.
|9.7.07 @ 7:09PM|#
He voted our way on both Gonzales v Raich and Kelo v New
London.
You've got a damned good point there.
|9.7.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Good thing he's just working to uphold the law instead of using his position for political activism.
|9.7.07 @ 7:44PM|#
An unusually wry and pointed bit of sarcasm from you, joe. Well done. Let's see more of that.
|9.7.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Zach:
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_thomas#Anita_Hill_controversy
|9.7.07 @ 8:03PM|#
What are you referring to? He voted our way on both Gonzales v Raich and Kelo v New London.
If you've got a problem, it should be with the craven liberal justices who cast their votes for statism in those cases.
You know Crimethink, you really crack me up sometimes. When you can
explain to me just how Scalia is "liberal" then your point may
stand.
That having been said, Thomas is about the most consistently
"libertarian" one on the bench, especially in the time since
Rehnquist left. I am not saying he's perfect but if Breyer and
Scalia were more like Thomas, well, I wouldn't have so much to
bitch about that's for sure.
|9.7.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Kwix,
Sorry to spoil the joke, but I never said it was only
craven liberal justices who voted for statism. IIRC, Scalia was on
the side of the angels for Kelo, while supposedly
compassionate liberal John Paul Stevens went 2 for 2 at bat for
government power in those cases.
Franklin Harris|9.7.07 @ 8:27PM|#
kwix,
Right now, franklinharris.com just goes to my MySpace page. It's
harmless. Well, except that a local troupe of burlesque performers
are in my top friends.
|9.7.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Ya know...all other issues aside, if I were a black man who was
subjected to some of the things in the Anita Hill brouhaha (I don't
like Thomas but I agree with a lot of folks that she had very
little credibility especially in following to another job
after her alleged harassment took place), I'd probably
have a royal case of the ass for any cause championed by liberals
too.
I'd probably goso far as to vote completely opposite of a liberal
stance whenever I could.
In other words, if it weren't for the Anita Hill mess, he'd
probably be a better justice.
|9.7.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Anita Hill has been vindicated for years.
The author of The Real Anita Hill admits to making up his charges,
and acknowledges that other women have come forward with similar
reports.
The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on the
Supreme Court.
SIV|9.7.07 @ 9:07PM|#
Anita Hill has been vindicated for years.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on the
Supreme Court.
For the sake of argument I will accept this statement as truth so I
can respond:
HE LIED ABOUT SEX, SO FUCKING WHAT?
Everybody lies about sex.
It isn't like HE LIED about WMDs or something
important!
consistency joe
|9.7.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Anita Hill sez:
It was during that time, from 1981 to 1983, according to Hill's testimony, Thomas asked her out on numerous dates and continuously talked of pornography and lewd sexual acts.
"I felt that all of those things were relevant for the Senate to consider, just as they had considered many other ways he had handled himself, many other issues in terms of how he had done his job as the chair of the EEOC. And so I felt that it was very relevant and very important for their consideration," Hill says now.
Yeah, we all know how talking about pornography and lewd sexual
acts, as well as asking women out on dates, is like
totally disqualifying behavior when it comes to
interpreting the Constitution. This is granting that everything she
said was true.
If Hill's testimony has ever been collaborated, I've not heard
about it, but would love to have a link to it.
|9.7.07 @ 9:08PM|#
SIV,
People given irrevocable lifetime appointments need to be held to a
high standard.
|9.7.07 @ 9:10PM|#
John-David,
I'm not sure it the text is online, but I'd point you to the book
Blinded By the Right by David Brock, the author of The Real Anita
Hill.
|9.7.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Joe,
I'm not aware that Hill was "vindicated." The author of "The Real
Anita Hill" wasn't sitting on congress when they decided her
testimony could not be backed up.
If you got some sources you'd like to point me too, I have an open
mind. As someone who's not a big fan of Thomas to begin with, I
assure you I'll give it a fair read.
|9.7.07 @ 9:23PM|#
madpad,
He provided the source material for the Republican Senators who
rushed to Thomas's defense. They used the talking points Brock
wrote for them.
He describes how it works in the book. Good book, too. Worth a
read.
|9.7.07 @ 9:24PM|#
So, joe, your evidence consists of the fact that a guy who wrote
an anti-Anita Hill book changed his mind about it?
By that standard, Mitt Romney's various policy conversions prove
that gray marriage is the #1 threat to our republic, abortion is
murder, and gun control is an affront to liberty.
|9.7.07 @ 9:32PM|#
I'm familiar with Brock and his confession of smearing Anita
Hill. And I doo enjoy Brock's stuff these day even if it's a little
over the top much of the time.
But knowing that Anita Hill was the victim of a smear campaign does
not and should not be seen as proof that her accusations were
truthful.
In the end, I don't really care. The truth is, I don't like either
one of them. I never thought Anita Hill's story added up and I
don't like Thomas because I think he's a poor justice.
|9.7.07 @ 9:40PM|#
crimethink,
Just read the book. This isn't about feelings, it's about facts,
and Brock lays out the facts. Just read the book.
madpad,
Brock didn't just smear Hill - he also tried to refute her
allegations. Read the book.
|9.7.07 @ 9:44PM|#
I'm very skeptical, to say the least, about the ability of
someone who had no link to the charges made by Anita Hill being
able to make the slam dunk case that you seem to think he makes.
And TBH I don't have time to waste on reading such a book.
And before you accuse me of being partisan, I'd say the same if it
were a liberal justice or politician who had been accused. Though
that doesn't protect me from getting labeled a "third party
partisan", I suppose.
|9.7.07 @ 9:48PM|#
Just read the book. Is that so terrifying, that you might be
exposed to facts that contradict what you wish to be true?
Read. The. Book.
Or don't. I don't care.
|9.7.07 @ 9:55PM|#
joe,
I read both of the relevant Brock books - the smear job on Hill,
and the "I am a liar" book. If he says he's a liar, I am inclined
to believe him, but if he assures us that he has now reformed and
only tells the truth, I'd like some corroboration.
Brock cancels out Brock. That leaves just the evidence.
I have no idea if Thomas talked dirty to Hill or not. Her story has
some holes, but that doesn't make it false. Nor does that fact that
the story corresponds to some anti-Thomas metanarrative make it
true.
|9.7.07 @ 10:06PM|#
If he says he's a liar, I am inclined to believe
him
::Smoke pours out of ears::
|9.7.07 @ 10:08PM|#
People given irrevocable lifetime appointments need to be
held to a high standard.
Whose high standards, joe? Yours? Please.
Oh, and I 1) don't think anyone should have irrevocable lifetime
appointments to positions of power and 2) I don't think SCOTUS
should be the supreme arbiter of the constitution.
|9.7.07 @ 10:08PM|#
Joe,
I'm sure Brock makes a great case and a great read.
My problems with Hill are primarily based on the fact that I don't
buy someone as offended as she says she was following him to
another job. She's either lying or she's a craven
opportunist.
It's just a personal opinion of mine about her testimony. But I'll
probably read Brock's book anyway,though it's likely to only
reinforce the reasons why I don't like either Hill or Thomas.
|9.7.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Oh, and I 1) don't think anyone should have irrevocable
lifetime appointments to positions of power and 2) I don't think
SCOTUS should be the supreme arbiter of the
constitution.
But isn't that what the constitution says?
|9.7.07 @ 10:12PM|#
madpad,
Judicial review wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's just a
custom.
|9.7.07 @ 10:15PM|#
prolefeed,
Well, like it or not, those are the perks of the job.
And not necessarily mine. Just somewhere north of yours.
|9.7.07 @ 10:19PM|#
We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was an ex-NFL player
named "Whizzer".
Whizzer dissented in the Miranda case, by the way, which
is far more egregious than anything Justice Thomas has done, or
will ever do.
|9.7.07 @ 10:35PM|#
United States Constitution - Article III):
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
supreme Court,...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…
Sounds like the constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme
arbiter of the constitution" to me.
As for the lifetime appointment, it's not irrevocable. Justices can
be impeached or removed by conviction.
|9.7.07 @ 10:50PM|#
Not to get all legalistic again, but having the power to decide
all cases arising under the Constitution is not equivalent to being
the supreme arbiter of the Constitution itself.
Judicial review originated with Marbury v Madison nearly two
decades after the Constitution was ratified. Even then, it wasn't
at all clear that the SCOTUS had the final say over Constitutional
issues; quite a few times in the 1800s, the other branches simply
ignored constitutional rulings of the Court.
SIV|9.7.07 @ 10:51PM|#
I am somewhat puzzled by the blanket hostility of some
"libertarians" to conservative judges. Judicial philosophy is an
area in which conservative and libertarian views largely
overlap.
Weigel snarked this in his debate blogging:
Republican voters want you to give David Souter a blanket party
and replace him with Ann Coulter
Could anyone explain why this substitution, from a libertarian
perspective, wouldn't be a total win.
|9.7.07 @ 10:56PM|#
Ann Coulter's dissents would make for a nice change of pace, I guess. I can see it already. "The eight fags in the majority decided blah blah, but I dissent. Not respectfully either because I don't respect anti-American traitors..."
SIV|9.7.07 @ 11:16PM|#
crimethink,
She is a Constitutional lawyer. I think she could curb her
hyperbole for a dream job that didn't encourage book sales and
personal appearance fees as the measure of success.
Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical
"originalism".
|9.7.07 @ 11:28PM|#
You want to read that over again, crimethink?
Because having the power to decide all cases arising under the
Constitution pretty much IS equivalent to being the supreme arbiter
of the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison merely accords the precedent with which to
interpret Article III as being just that. And yes, some branches
have ignored the court at times. Lot harder to do that these
days.
I am somewhat puzzled by the blanket hostility of some
"libertarians" to conservative judges.
I think the problem for libertarians comes when declared
conservative justices do things like decide to put aside First
Amendment protections for citizens, as Thomas and Scalia recently
did.
In general,there's deep suspicion by many libertarians of
"Conservatives" since many of them aren't true conservatives.
Simply put, if the declared conservative uses the phrase
"conservative values" at any time, they are not to be trusted.
|9.7.07 @ 11:30PM|#
Madame Justice Couter, for the Court:
"The appellants are a bunch of pot-smoking hippies who persistently
vote Democratic. They come before this court to claim that federal
regulation of marijuana violates the Tenth Amendment. This from the
same party that wants to federalize everything. They don't care
about federalism, and they are remanded to the custody of the
Attorney General of the United States for indefinite detention.
They have no right to complain about *that,* either, because their
hero FDR interned the Japanese Americans in a classic liberal war
crime."
"The next appellant is a salt-of-the earth Republican whom some
Democratic prosecutor is trying to send to prison for killing his
wife. A least he *has* a wife, not a same-sex partner like Barney
Frank. The appellant is released from prison so that he can
continue his loyal service to the Republican party and the United
States of Amerca."
|9.7.07 @ 11:30PM|#
Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical
"originalism".
That's pretty much a typical oxymoronic Coulterism...which means
it's full of crap and has no meaning that can be effectively
applied in the real world.
|9.7.07 @ 11:52PM|#
She is a Constitutional lawyer.
Being a 'Constitutional Lawyer' is like being a 'Medical
Doctor'
I think she could curb her hyperbole for a dream job that
didn't encourage book sales and personal appearance fees as the
measure of success.
Your expecting an awful lot of Ms. Coulter...I don't think she can
handle that kind of pressure.
|9.8.07 @ 12:12AM|#
For those interested in the issue of judicial review I suggest
Larry Kramer's excellent "The People Themselves: Popular
Constitutionalism and Judicial Review."
Sounds like the constitution says the Supreme Court is the
"supreme arbiter of the constitution" to me.
One of the big snags in that notion is of course the idea that the
Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction from the federal
courts (except in some limited circumstances). It could assign that
jurisdiction to the state courts (as it did for much of American
history) in other words.
crimethink,
Judicial review, as a concept where the courts review the actions
of the other bodies of government, existed prior to Marbury (just
how much prior to it is of some debate). The issue not so much
whether the courts have the authority to review actions of the
other bodies of government (that is one sort of judicial review)
but whether it is the most superior arbiter of such. Check out
Kramer's book for more on such.
|9.8.07 @ 12:32AM|#
the Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction from the
federal courts
It can also expand it. And congress can't take away the supreme
court's appellate jurisdiction...which pretty much makes it the
final word on constitutional matters, doesn't it?
As for the book plug, I checked it out on Amazon.com After reading
the Newt Gingrich review I got a little leery.
All the yammering about "appointed lawyers" pretty much falls flat
when one is confronted by the fact that over 95% of the federal
attorneys and judges now serving were appointed by Republican
presidents (Clinton only got a handful of appointments in).
Still, worth considering. Thanks Sylson.
|9.8.07 @ 1:05AM|#
The folks slagging Thomas should take a look at this link.
Search and
Seizure
His dissent in Edmonds is also one more example of how Clarence Thomas is the biggest friend of liberty on the bench, and a far more thoughtful and sophisticated jurist than his leftist critics give him credit for.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.8.07 @ 2:16AM|#
The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on
the Supreme Court.
Thank god he's not the fargin' president. [wipes a sweaty brow as
the women fawn]
thoreau|9.8.07 @ 2:40AM|#
joe-
The problem with David Brock is the same as the problem with
anybody who says "I was working as a hatchetman, and now I'm here
to tell you how awful my previous employers were."
I'm not here to argue for or against any stance in regard to
Clarence Thomas, but simply to argue that David Brock is not to be
trusted.
|9.8.07 @ 2:49AM|#
Bajakajian
a 5-4 decision in 1998, authored by Clarence Thomas.
Jacobson
another 5-4 decision with Thomas in the majority, this one was from
his first year on the court.
And on this website we know about Kelo v New London, and Gonzales v
Raich.
Even with my very limited familiarity with Supreme Court cases I
know that madpad you should be ashamed of yourself.
David Brock was a contemptible lying scumbag fourteen years ago,
and he is still a contemptible lying scumbag after having switched
sides.
|9.8.07 @ 6:37AM|#
Even with my very limited familiarity with Supreme Court
cases I know that madpad you should be ashamed of
yourself.
What, pray tell, did I do now?
I never said Brock wasn't a liar...merely that he was
entertaining.
|9.8.07 @ 9:13AM|#
madpad, I think pgt was saying you should be ashamed of your dissing of Clarence Thomas.
|9.8.07 @ 9:14AM|#
Wow, this many posts into a thread about Ayn Rand and still no jokes about Clarence Thomas taking up smoking or being stuck in high school? I mean, I know we already got the rough sex mention out of the way but COME ON PEOPLE, there's distancing to be done!
|9.8.07 @ 9:23AM|#
I highly encourage checking out the Wikipedia article on Long Dong Silver. "...famed for the size of his penis (reputedly 18 inches),[citation needed]."
|9.8.07 @ 10:45AM|#
For the sake of argument I will accept this statement as
truth so I can respond:
HE LIED ABOUT SEX, SO FUCKING WHAT?
Everybody lies about sex.
It isn't like HE LIED about WMDs or something important!
consistency joe
SIV, partisans, both republicrats and demlicans have one set of
rules for their own party and a different, stricter, set for the
other side of the aisle. We know Ted Kennedy is guilty of
manslaughter. We know Ted Stevens is for sale to the highest
bidder. Try to get somebody from their respective parties to admit
it.
|9.8.07 @ 12:15PM|#
madpad, I think pgt was saying you should be ashamed of your
dissing of Clarence Thomas.
Oh...his post made it seem like a more substantive criticism.
Ironic, though, as my criticism has been far tamer than joe's
defense of both Brock and Hill.
And I haven't defamed Thomas's character...I've merely said I think
he's a poor justice.
|9.8.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Decisive votes in Jacobson and Bajakajian on the pro-liberty side, voting with "liberals". Dissents in Raich and Kelo, voting with "conservatives". You might want a better Justice, but none are available on the present SCOTUS, or in the recent past.
|9.8.07 @ 12:46PM|#
You might want a better Justice,
Just because I can't stand Bush doesn't mean I wanted Kerry
instead.
Lack of suitable (purely a matter of opinion) alternatives doesn't
make Thomas a good justice.
|9.8.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Look at Adam Smith....lousy economist.
Friedrich Hayek, as a political philosopher definitely sub par, as
an economist? Well he didn't have a prestigous NYTS gig like
Krugman does so that says it all.
John Locke? Why is that guy even relevant I mean it is the 21st
Century.He was a poor philosopher even in his day.
|9.8.07 @ 1:16PM|#
madpad,
So I take it you don't like ANY of the justices? I mean, I'd love
to have 9 clones of Ron Paul on the bench, but let's be practical
about this. What decisions/opinions of Thomas are you so pissed
about?
|9.8.07 @ 2:04PM|#
What makes you think that I'm 'pissed' about Thomas, crimethink?
I just don't find him to be a great justice is all.
He writes very little and speaks even less, for starters. I'm also
usually unimpressed by proclaimed 'originalist' as this is often
little more than a political code word anymore and means almost
nothing in actual practice. And lastly, as a 'libertarian' justice
he is way inconsistent.
To see how 'originalist he is check out Morse v. Frederick, the
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. While he's usually pro-free speech, his
assertion that students have no free speech rights is pretty out
there.
He get props from me for being a federalist and finding the
commerce clause assertions behind the anti-marijuana crowd fishy.
But then he goes and sides with the federal government's right to
raid marijuana clubs. So much for consistency.
His interpretation of the 4th amendment is all over the map and
(but for some notable exceptions as with Kyllo v. United States and
Indianapolis v. Edmond ) he usually sides with law
enforcement.
And he's so falling over himself for executive power, his dissent
in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was almost sycophantic.
I could go on...and you'll probably pick apart all of my opinions
now that I've given some specifics.
I just don't dig the guy...let's move on shall we.
|9.8.07 @ 2:43PM|#
More on Thomas's inconsistency ala Morse v. Frederick. In 2000,
Thomas had no problem dessenting on a school prayer case, Santa Fe
Independent School Dist. v. Doe.
The court reviewed whether a student-led, student-initiated prayer
at football games violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. While the court upheld that it did, Thomas (and Scalia
and Rhenquist...big surprise there) dissented.
So, when it comes to saying a prayer, student DO have the right to
free speech? What a hypocrite.
His judicial philosophy is based less on deep thought about serious
issues and more on being a conservative toady.
|9.8.07 @ 2:53PM|#
madpad,
And congress can't take away the supreme court's appellate
jurisdiction...
How do you interpret this language?
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.
|9.8.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Hmmm...do you predict a situation where the congress will
eliminate ALL of the Supreme Court's appellate authority?
Point of fact, of course, you nailed me as I should have read
deeper. Oh well...win some, lose some.
dhex|9.8.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical
"originalism".
is originalism code for "jello shots" or something?
|9.8.07 @ 5:40PM|#
von Mises? He couldn't even compute sales tax, much less read a
mortgage table.
John Stuart Mill? From the lowest tier of philosophers.
Thomas Jefferson? Can you think of a more boring "founding
document" than his lame Declaration?
Milton Friedman? Nobel Prize in Economics?
A Fourth Place ribbon in the Pinewood Derby
would have been a gratuitous reward for his "contributions" to
Economics and Liberty.
|9.8.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Well we could have a worse Supreme Court Justice than Clarence Thomas.The wingnuts like this Janice Rogers Brown. She isn't fit to cook me pancakes much less hear a Supreme Court Case.
Ray G|9.8.07 @ 7:29PM|#
Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of
intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them.
Just my little way of proselytizing.
|9.8.07 @ 9:15PM|#
Madpad,
You might like Thomas but that does not change the fact that he is
the most consistent, freedom friendly judge on the court.
|9.8.07 @ 10:19PM|#
TJIT,
It's obvious you've ignored everything I've written and are
incapable of intelligently commenting on it using facts. You're in
the same ilk as those folks who so righteously declared Rumsfeld
"the best secretary of defense we've ever had."
Your argument (or lack there of) appears to be solely based out of
perception, emotion and what someone else said rather than anything
you came up with on your own by gathering evidence and actually
reading about his accomplishments.
Come back when you can put forth a substantive case.
dhex|9.8.07 @ 11:44PM|#
Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of
intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them.
jehovah's witnesses: the unknown ideal.
|9.9.07 @ 7:45AM|#
Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of
intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them...
..immediately bringing to an end what could have been a delightful
relationship.
|9.9.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Madpad,
We don't have a lot of freedom respecting judges on the court. I
mean honestly in the past few years when has the court
evervoted to limit expansion of government
power?
What I interesting is that Thomas gets so much hostility when he
has had at least a few examples of supporting legal ideas that will
give more respect to individuals and increase freedom.
Unlike scalia who changes votes based on which side of an issue is
more helpful to expanding drug war powers. And unlike the members
of the "liberal" block who have been wrong on Kelo, and Raich and
done little to increase personal liberty.
But I'm willing to be persuaded.
Maybe you can show me how the other justices are better then Thomas
and how their legal framework is more likely to increase individual
freedom.
|9.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Alright TJIT, I'll go with you on one point...in terms of
liberty issues, he's marginally better than the other current
sitting justices.
I say marginally because he's voted with Scalia 91% of the time. I
also say marginally because (as I've already pointed out) he has
some serious inconsistencies on 1st and 4th amendment
applications.
But friendliness to liberty is only one aspect of a justice's
contribution to constitutionality. I still don't like the
motherfucker.
|9.9.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Madpad,
The fact you overlook in both Santa Fe and
Frederick is that Thomas supported the school districts'
positions. His position is that students do not have free speech
rights, so the school district has nearly unlimited latitude to
make rules (such as allowing religious speech in Santa Fe
or barring some speech in Frederick). It's not a position
I agree with or that is particularly liberty-friendly, but it is
consistent.
As to some other 1st amendment inconsistencies, I think the
clarifying issue is federalism. Generally, he's been very strict
with federal speech restrictions (whether hate-based, campaign
finance, or commercial speech), but the states get a lighter hand.
Again, not perfectly liberty-friendly, but certainly better than
the others and others that have retired in the last 20 years.
It's unfortunate that for every Kelo, Raich, or
Kyllo, there is a Hudson, Hamdi, or
Elk Grove, but that's how it goes.
|9.9.07 @ 3:12PM|#
AC (et al), sure...that's how it goes...in a perfect universe
and all. I get that and I'm fine with it. Listen we can split hairs
till doomsday and too often these threads devolve into just
that.
I'm not pissed, I'm not filled with hate for Thomas and I don't
carry around some militant anti- or pro- list of why I feel certain
ways about certain political folks.
I've admitted (grudgingly) that Thomas is more liberty-friendly
than his confreres. Now, can't I just not like the guy?
|9.10.07 @ 12:59PM|#
"""You might like Thomas but that does not change the fact that
he is the most consistent, freedom friendly judge on the
court."""
Freedom to let the police do pretty much anything they want.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245