Supreme Court

The Dumbest Attack on Clarence Thomas You'll Read Today

The New Yorker faults the conservative justice for leaving no "footprints" at SCOTUS.



Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court 25 years ago this month. To mark the occasion, Thomas's jurisprudence has been examined by journalists, praised by admirers, and assailed by critics.

Foremost among the critics is Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker. Toobin's dislike of Thomas is well known. Also well known is the fact that Toobin has a bad habit of disregarding the truth when it comes to writing about Thomas. For instance, in February 2014 Toobin labelled Thomas an "embarrassment" because the justice was supposedly half-asleep most of the time on the bench. "His eyelids look heavy," Toobin wrote. "Every schoolteacher knows this look. It's called 'not paying attention.'"

That false description was promptly challenged by court-watchers of various ideological stripes, all of whom agreed that Toobin was full of it. In reality, Thomas is often quite energetic during oral arguments. He doesn't ask questions (well, he mostly doesn't ask questions), but he does actively confer with his neighboring justices, particularly Justice Stephen Breyer, and sometimes, according to Thomas, he even suggests the questions that Breyer and other justices do ask. In other words, Toobin's nonsense was debunked.

Toobin's latest critique of the conservative justice is titled "Clarence Thomas' Twenty-Five Years Without Footprints." According to Toobin, Thomas has left no "footprints" on the Court because he "has never been assigned a landmark opinion." Thomas is a "radical" and a "court of his own," Toobin charges. "After years at the periphery of the Court, Thomas looks destined to serve out his term at the even more distant fringe."

This is a pretty dumb argument, even by Toobin's standards. As any student of the Supreme Court could tell you, some of the most influential justices in American history never wrote a majority opinion in the area of the law in which they ultimately had the most influence. Those particular justices tended to write in dissent—or wrote lone concurrences—yet their arguments slowly but surely moved the Court in their preferred "radical" direction.

For example, consider liberal hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes penned many opinions during his three decades on the Court, but the one that is cited again and again as proof of his wisdom and influence is his solo 1905 dissent in Lochner v. New York, the famous case in which the majority overruled a state economic regulation on the grounds that it did not serve the health or safety of the public and violated the constitutional right to liberty of contract secured by the 14th Amendment. "I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted," Holmes declared, "when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion." Holmes wanted the regulation to be upheld.

In 1905 Justice Holmes was on the Court's "fringe" when it came to the judicial protection of economic liberty. But Holmes's interpretation found its audience among the assorted politicians, lawyers, intellectuals, and activists who comprised the burgeoning Progressive and New Deal movements. (In the moist words of New Deal adviser and future SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, Holmes "is led by the divination of the philosopher and the imagination of the poet.") In time, those politicians, lawyers, intellectuals, and activists came to occupy the commanding heights of American government, including the Supreme Court bench. Guess what happened then? In March 1937, two years after Holmes' death, a majority of the Supreme Court adopted Holmes's anti-Lochner interpretation. "The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract," the Court ruled in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.

In short, it's cheap and foolish to dismiss a justice for leaving no "footprints" at the Supreme Court simply because that justice is best known for going it alone. At SCOTUS, today's lone voice can become tomorrow's majority opinion.

NEXT: A New DNA Technique Led to the Capture of Some of California's Most Notorious Criminals. Could it Free an Innocent Man?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now that Scalia is gone, that Uncle Tom is the only thing standing in the way of utopia!

    1. Exhibit A of rich white liberal bigotry. And then people wonder why more minorities don’t become libertarians or Republicans, because the rich white liberal will call them hateful and racist names and the media will nod in agreement. Toobin is a bigot, just as you are Hyperion.

      Go retreat to your safe-space at Vox (the young adult website).

      1. I know Hyperion was being sarcastic, but not sure if you’re serious.

        1. I don’t even know anymore

          1. What’s the problem, sarcasm is easy to detect.

            1. Not really, my sarcasm detector flakes out a lot.

              I’m told the model 82 has an issue with the midplane. Sadly, it’s incompatable with older models in form factor for my brain, and too high voltage a system for the newer models 🙁

              1. Heh heh, my remark was itself sarcastic.

                1. Easy answer – everything is sarcasm here, especially the Trump articles.

                2. Is this remark sarcastic too? If so would that mean your last remark wasn’t?

                  It’s getting meta in here.

                  1. Yeah, listen to Bobarian, he is always right.

                    1. See there, Crusty is really on top of things.


          2. This looks like a job for Sarcastro.

            1. Excellent.

      2. I got banned from Vox again. I’m too progressive for them!

    2. “The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated. The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”
      -Clarence Thomas

      1. Good thing he don’t live in Dogdick, GA. You know the things the Tealiban do to our very own buttplug down there. It’s heinous.

        1. pay for his underwater mortgage?

  2. Foremost among the critics is Jeffrey Toobin

    Foremost by what measure, exactly?

    1. prifligacy

  3. Anyway, who cares. What does Toobin think about Trump?

    1. Has Thomas publicly vowed to vote for Clinton yet? That seems to be fashionable among DC conservatives these days.

  4. I don’t hear Toobin as regularly on NPR as I did in years past. You know, FWIW.

  5. A black man getting the short end of a double standard? What is this, 1950s Alabama?

  6. Jeffrey Toobin is a serious man with serious opinions and people should take what he says seriously

    1. I bet he’s not as serious as Anderson Cooper. No one is as serious as Anderson Cooper! He vaporizes the right wing nuts with just his serious gaze!

  7. “(In the moist words of New Deal adviser and future SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, Holmes “is led by the divination of the philosopher and the imagination of the poet.”) ”

    Frankfurter was an insufferable little prick, it was poetic justice when his fellow-progs finally turned on him.

    He thought being a prog meant supporting the feds against the states and the government against the individual. He forgot that there was an exception for Sacred and Important Rights, meaning rights which progs can mentally separate from the icky concept of property rights.

    1. Poor Felix (infelix Felix?) – he couldn’t do the mental gymnastics to explain why the government had the power to violate the rights of business owners…but didn’t have the power to put commies in prison.

      So he ultimately became a “conservative” in the eyes of the legal establishment.

    2. Frankfurter was practically a fascist.

      1. With noteworthy exceptions, he tended to preach judicial “self-restraint” – or abdication – whether the case involved property rights or some “real” right valued by progs.

        As his acolyte, Judge Learned Hand, put it, why should the courts show deference to the government regarding the right to property, but get all fussy about protecting the right to liberty?

      2. practically a fascist

        See Webster’s dictionary for definition of ‘Progressive’.

  8. So how many justices does Hillary replace?

    We already need one for Scalia. Kennedy is 80, he’s probably done soon. Ginsburg is 83 and has been holding out for Hillary, and then what, Breyer at 78?

    The court will end up being reliably liberal 6-3, and Alito, Thomas and Roberts will be all that’s left to maintain separation of powers.

    We are so fucked.

    1. Does the Chief Justice have any power to reign the court in? Can he simply prevent controversial cases from being heard before the court? Genuinely curious how much power he has.

      1. I don’t know how much power he has – but to prevent ‘controversial’ cases from being heard would be an huge injustice all in itself.

        Don’t forget that these cases involve *people*, people who’ve been fighting for years just to get a chance for cert. Do you really want to tell them that they’ll have to wait another 10 years when hopefully the court will be stacked in their favor?

        1. you cant sit on appeals that long. if we are talking individual cases, you have to meet apellate deadlines, and if u make it to the fed supremes & they refuse to hear you thats it for your case.

      2. The main power that the Chief Justice has in controlling the court is by assignment of who rights the opinions of the side he’s voting with on a case. So, if he knows a case isn’t going to go the way he wants he can vote with the winning side and assign himself to write the majority controlling opinion and potentially minimize the damage as he sees it. He also has some control over the agenda of the court as he runs their meetings, but he alone can’t prevent cases from being heard. (4 of 9 Justices must vote to accept a case and he only has one vote)

    2. Scratch Roberts, so that leaves… Alito and Thomas.

      1. +1 penaltax

      2. And Alito is just fascist. He’s pretty terrible.

    3. Eh, Obama has replaced two Justices during his terms, and the Supreme Court has still ruled 9-0 against him more than I think any other president in history. Hildog hasn’t realized that she can’t unilaterally impeach any Justice who doesn’t quo her quid.

      1. Eh, Obama has replaced two Justices during his terms, and the Supreme Court has still ruled 9-0 against him more than I think any other president in history. Hildog hasn’t realized that she can’t unilaterally impeach any Justice who doesn’t quo her quid.

        Except Hillary doesn’t take that kind of shit lying down.

        1. “They only serve for life” – Hil

          1. +2 bullets to the back of the head and an unfortunate barbell accident

      2. His two pick – one turns out to be a pretty decent defender of liberty, one is kinda meh.

        *IF* the R’s do their job, Clinton won’t be able to appoint anyone too far in the pocket of the Progressive agenda.

        1. Your ‘if’ is not big enough in text to reflect the poor probability of the congressional delegations doing their job.

        2. Come January that douche bag McConnell is going to dread not confirming Garland

          Thanks Trump.

    4. So how many justices does Hillary replace?

      At least two, although Ginsburg will be a wash for the proggy fascists (same with Breyer).

      1. Hell, we might get someone better than her!

    5. Yeah, and the people telling Hillary what to do are smart enough to have her appoint young ones too. They could send all white men to reeducation camps and sotomayor and kagan would only raise a hand to applaud.

  9. I think he’s commendable for trying to revive the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, the lesser-known but equally important twin of Heller.

  10. Oliver Wendell Holmes is the most overrated justice in American history. This is a man that upheld eugenics (‘three generations of imbecile is enough’) and thought that it was totally cool to jail people for opposing the draft (‘you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater’). The Left only likes him because he was a statist through and through and he was a moral relativist. And that’s hip.

    1. Holmes wasn’t a prog, but he provided intellectual ammunition to his prog buddies to persuade the Court to uphold nasty proggy laws. In return, his proggy buddies boosted him as the second coming of Edward Coke.

      1. Also, I think he was the first “out” atheist on the Supreme Court (“brooding omnipresence in the sky,” “believes more than some of us do in the Sermon on the Mount,” etc.)

      2. Holmes wasn’t a prog

        Actually, I think he was. Eugenics was a big progressive thing back in his day.

    2. Here’s H.L. Mencken’s opinion of Holmes, as a facsimile from The American Mercury.

        1. Interesting article. Only halfway through.

          BTW: did you notice how Mencken listed Buck v. Bell as one of the Holmes decisions that Liberals approved of?

      1. In three Espionage Act cases, including the Debs case, one finds a clear statement of the doctrine that, in war time, the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment cease to have any substance, and may be set aside summarily by any jury that has been sufficiently inflamed by a district attorney seeking higher office.


        Finding him, now and then, defending eloquently a new and uplifting law which his colleagues proposed to trike off the books, they concluded that he was a sworn advocate of the rights of man. But all the while, if I do not misread his plain words, he was actually no more than an advocate of the rights of law-makers. There, indeed, is the clue to his whole jurisprudence. He believes that the law-making bodies should be free to experiment almost ad libitum, that the courts should not call a halt upon them until they clearly pass the uttermost bounds of reason, that everything should be sacrificed to their autonomy, including, apparently, even the rights of man. If this is Liberalism, then all I can say is that Liberalism is not wha t it was when I was young.

        1. Wow. Mencken was far ahead of his time.

    3. if it weren’t for Reason, i’d have never heard of Toobin. thanks for nothing.

    4. I recently read a favorable biography of Holmes. Even the sympathetic author was forced to admit that Holmes considered the Bill of Rights not as an affirmative limit on government power, but as mere aspirations that the government could disregard as it saw fit.

      Simply put, Holmes embodied the European notion of government, verbalized by Prof. Hans Kelsen, that “a wrong of the State is a contradiction in terms.” The State is correct because it is the State.

      1. It’s kind of like God in the Old Testament. Yeah, he does some fucked up shit, but what are you going to do? It’s fucking God.

        I wonder if the Euro style of government philosophy you describe is derived from the notion of the divine right of kings to rule?

        1. Why do you think they decapitated kings? They were stealing their power like Immortals.

        2. Zeb, the concept of “sovereignty immunity,” as used by nation states today, is founded upon the notion of the “divine right of kings,” i.e., the king can do no wrong.

          In fact, the only reason the plebes can sue the federal government in, say, tort is because the federal government allows it. See the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946).

          1. I am certain sovereign immunity, at least pertaining to the right to sue public officials for their actions in office, certainly has a more practical justification as well. Near the end of the Roman republic it was commonplace that the moment a consul left office his successor would try to have him exiled or executed for some violation or other that they were all guilth of. Became a real problem.

    5. My favorite judge is Learned Hand. You can’t argue with those eyebrows.

      Lesser known, but equally important, was his son Steady Pimp.

      1. Amazing what you can do with a name most people will look at and go “That’s fake, right?”

      2. He kind of had a Groucho-Marx look going.

    6. I keep learning about how evil Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr was.

  11. His eyelids look heavy,” Toobin wrote. “Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called ‘not paying attention.'”

    Wow. The black man is lazy, eh?

    1. I have seen a great many schoolteachers who thought they caught a student not paying attention and got embarassed by the student knowing at least as much as they had been struggling to convey about the subject. From his record, Justice Thomas does pay attention, but speaks little.

      1. To people like Toobin, the only way to prove you’re intelligent is to run your mouth all the time.

        Or else vote Democrat, that works, too.

        1. Eddo, as has been mentioned many times on this blog, but it bears repeating – Toobin is a notorious “deadbeat dad.”

          1. I did a quick Google search, and it simply seems that he’s a modern-minded progressive with New York values, and that he acts accordingly (adultery, quarreling with ex-mistress over child support). This sort of thing isn’t scandalous – it would only be scandalous if he reached out to social conservatives in some way or said something which could be interpreted as conservative, in which case his OMG HYPOCRISY would become the Most Important Thing Ever.

            But since he shows no conservative leanings that I know of, then it’s just another prog applying social-liberal principles in a practical way.

            1. I once heard this gem about the contrast between prog hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy:

              When conservatives violate their own principles, they hurt themselves and their families (eg, by committing adultery, using drugs, and the like).

              When progs violate their own principles, they benefit themselves and their families (eg, by sending their children to good private schools)

              1. Yes, progressives are better in every way. Correct.

      2. Teachers learned to let me “nap” in the classroom.

    2. It’s also called, “what I am hearing is not worth listening to.”

    3. He’s probably on the reefers too.

      1. Them darkies usually are.

        Right, Jeffrey?

  12. Jeffery Toobin, the New Yorker’s version of Sabrina Rubin Erdely

    1. Easy there, Dennis Miller.

  13. My mom is a full blown leftist feminist retired attorney who despised Thomas for years, and then I made her watch this interview/lecture that Thomas gave to Harvard Law Students and she changed her mind about him completely.

    Justice Clarence Thomas visits HLS

  14. “The Dumbest Attack on Clarence Thomas You’ll Read Today”

    You say that now, but how’s that gonna look once Tony shows up?

  15. Toobin’s “analysis” has envy written all over it. Everyone knows who Justice Clarence Thomas is, but very few have a clue who this Toobin doofus is.

    Isn’t Toobin one of the family names of Hobbits? Along with Brandywine, Baggins, and Took? It figures he would pick on Thomas’ “heavy lidded” appearance. Toobin is probably just trying to downplay his own tiny stature and huge hairy feet. At least that’s how I picture him.

    1. Both Toobin and Thomas have law degrees. Thomas ended up at the pinnacle of his profession and his opinions will be cited and debated long after he leaves the court. Toobin ended up a leftist hack writing for a magazine few people read. Yeah, Toobin has a lot to be envious about.

  16. Ok, this Toobin might be a hard hitting journalist who keeps those negroes from gettin too uppity. But he has not yet reached the greatness of one Frank Bruni. To quote one of his recently great lines: “Hillary is salmon with cucumber and dill”.

    Wow! What a wordsmith this Bruni is! I’m mesmerized by his mastery of words!

    1. Plagarist! I was saying Rand Paul had the charisma of a limp trout! How dare he steal my fish analogy?

      1. You stop othering the trouts!

  17. There are tons of exhibits for all sorts of famous black people in the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Some exhibits are of fairly obscure people too. Guess who doesn’t have one? Oh, but Anita Hill has one that briefly mentions Thomas.…..ican-histo

    1. That is really horrible. I don’t like Obama but I would never say he doesn’t deserve a pretty prominent place in African American History. More than anything, leftists are just nasty petty people.

      1. Are there many exhibits on other 2nd African-Americans to do something?

        1. Yes. Black people have real accomplishments Tony other than being the “first” this or that. You really need to work on your attitudes about race. Black people can be significant for reasons other than being the first black to do something.

          1. But Thomas is an undistinguished justice apart from his being the 2nd black one. So I’m asking, does the museum recognize many other 2nd black people to do something?

            1. Thomas is a very distinguished justice. He is held in high regard by the legal community. You think otherwise because you are a racist who can’t handle a black man with his own opinions being on the court. Instead of worrying about Thomas you need to do some serious self examination about why Thomas having differing opinions from you bothers you so much more than when a white justice does.

              1. Andrew Napolitano is not “the legal community.”

                1. last I looked Richard Epstein and Judge Posner and a lot of other people who hold Thomas in high regard are.

                  But they are not racists who have a problem with black men with their own opinions being on the court. I get it Tony that you disagree with Thomas. That is fine. I disagree with him about some things too. Where you go wrong is when you try and claim he is not a good or significant justice. The only reason you are saying that is because he is black. You would never say the same thing about Alito or Scalia, even though you disagree with them and they are held in no higher esteem by your side than Thomas. Again, you need to get over your anger and discomfort over a black man daring to disagree with you.

                  1. Alito and Scalia are/were dumbfucks.

                2. Tony, you should not try on this one.

                  You are so very stupid. just go back to your skinny jeans and micro-aggression classes.

            2. But Thomas is an undistinguished justice apart from his being the 2nd black one.


              So I’m asking, does the museum recognize many other 2nd black people to do something?

              It recognizes Anita Hill, who is a nobody.

              1. Maybe conservatives should have thought to build a museum first. Oh wait, I’m beyond absolutely certain that most conservatives think openly or secretly that the very idea is an affront to their white supremacist sensibilities.

                Jesus it’s like a lactose-intolerant asshole bitching that Ben and Jerry’s doesn’t make the ice cream they want.

                1. Maybe conservatives should have thought to build a museum first.

                  yes Tony. they should have done that because clearly liberals are too racist and too uncomfortable with a black man daring to disagree with them to do it fairly.

                  Why do you think black people have no right to disagree with you? They are not inferior to you. They have a right to have their own opinions. And they are often right about things. You can’t seem to accept that and assume if they don’t think as you think they should, there is something wrong with them. You just can’t tolerate them being uppity can you?

                  1. Most black people seem perfectly happy with the museum.

                    1. Who cares Tony. The point is that you are not happy with Thomas in a way that you are with white justices who are also on the other side politically.

                    2. Oh I hated Scalia a lot more than Thomas. And I’m glad he’s dead.

                2. Your nonresponsive bitching about conservatives suggests that you can’t rebut my points re Anita Hill vs. Thomas or, more importantly, Thomas’ judicial legacy.

                3. You still have not figured it out.

                  People that read Reason are not conservative or anything else. They come here to read something other than the drivel produced in the rest of the media outlets. They are just not brainwashed robots like you.
                  Why do you argue with people? You have no intention of learning anything in your life that you have not been instructed to obey by the machine that is government propaganda.

                  This is why people find you to be such an idiot.

        2. Are you seriously going to contend that Anita Hill is more deserving of an exhibit than Clarence Thomas?

          And how much you wanna bet the next black Democrat appointed to the court gets an exhibit? Seriously, how much?

          1. When conservatives get around to building museums dedicated to the black American experience, they can put whatever exhibits they want in them. Every single person whining about the lack of a Thomas exhibit doesn’t think the museum should exist in the first place.

            1. So, you admit then that progressives elude important accomplished black people from history because they disagree with progressives on some thing?

              Great, glad you acknowledge it. Doubtless, when feminists complain that men haven’t written enough on history of women, you give the same reply: “we’re men; it’s not our job to write about women.”

              I say this a lot, but even for you this pretty dense.

              1. It took me five seconds to google an actual decent argument for including Thomas, in the Washington Post.

                I actually don’t care one way or the other. I’m here to make John talk like a social justice warrior and laugh about it.

                But it is kind of true that Thomas ostentatiously refuses to acknowledge the validity of race-based measures of achievement. He wouldn’t want to be in that museum, I’d venture to guess.

          2. Tony knows he and the museum decision makers are full of shit; they’re deliberately leaving out a prominent black jurist because he espouses wrongthink.

            1. Among his opinions perhaps the single most prominent is that black people shouldn’t be recognized for their achievements as black people.

  18. This sort of thing is always good for a laugh. It’s funny to watch the Progs lose their water because someone in one of their “victim” groups doesn’t stay on the plantation.

    1. Truly appalling. Nobody said “Err, you know, the second African-American Justice might merit a mention. You know, in a museum of the history and achievements of African-Americans?”

  19. Understand that Jeffrey Toobin is an idiot. If he had any kind of legal mind, he would be using it practicing law and making a much better living than he does being a hack for the New Yorker. Toobin is also a horrible human being who got the daughter of a close friend pregnant and then refused to admit paternity and forced her to sue him and get a court to order a DNA test and to order him to support a child he knew was his. Clearance Thomas, whatever you think of his record as a Justice, is decent human being who overcame growing up poor in 1960s South Carolina. The guy was the only black student in his high school. Toobin is unfit to breath Thomas’ air.

    Beyond that, Root is spot on here. Thomas has constructed a legacy of minority opinions that express a consistent legal philosophy. Time will tell how persuasive that philosophy proves to future courts. It is however an enormous legacy and a much more commendable one than the one left by leftist hacks like RBG or Kagan who have spent their entire careers torturing the law to obtain whatever result their politics demanded.

    1. Any common loon can write 25 years of consistent loony philosophy. It’s possible Thomas’s bizarre constitutional worldview becomes dominant in the future, but it won’t be in a country anyone will enjoy living in.

      1. Yes Tony, we know you prefer your internally inconsistent loony progressive worldview over sound legal reasoning.

        1. Consistency is overrated. And if Thomas is such a sound legal scholar, surely his opinions are routinely cited in legal scholarship.

          1. They are. They just are not cited by racists on the left who can’t handle a black man with strong opinions.

          2. “Consistency is overrated.”

            There it is. That can be placed next to the Whoopi Goldberg quote of her telling Bill O’Rielly that logic is overrated. How people can live past the age of ten viewing things this way I don’t think I’ll ever understand.

            1. Didn’t say it was bad, just overrated. At times the hobgoblin of little minds, as it were.

            2. Reason, logic, the scientific method, critical thinking – all cishetero constructs designed to enslave prog bodies.

      2. Tony,

        Justice Marshall was a great American. Just because he ended up writing minority opinions his entire career on the court doesn’t make him a bad justice much less a loon.

        It is 2016 Tony, black people can serve on the Supreme Court now. Get used to it.

      3. Do you actually have an argument?

  20. So what are some landmark Thomas-associated cases? You forgot to list any.

    1. Enact your own labor, brah.

    2. LOL

      Ken Shultz|10.26.16 @ 2:31PM|#

      “The Dumbest Attack on Clarence Thomas You’ll Read Today”

      You say that now, but how’s that gonna look once Tony shows up?

      To be fair, it was a tie.

    3. Name a single landmark case where Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion? You won’t find any. Marshall spent most of his career writing in the majority on the Berger and later Rehnquist courts. Did Marshall also not leave any legacy?

      Tony, you seem to have a problem with black Supreme Court justices. Do you not think black people are up for the job?

      1. The argument acknowledges that he never writes landmark majority opinions; it’s that Thomas’s fringe opinions might someday become relevant. I’m just wondering which ones.

        As to your last question, I guess there’s a reason you’re known as the king of subtlety.

        1. I listed one above (and there are many more); Thomas’s concurrence in McDonald may be the vehicle through which SCOTUS finally revives the Privileges and Immunities Clause, ignored by the courts since the Slaughterhouse Cases.

        2. And that is because there is more to being a great justice than being the justice chosen to write a particular opinion. If you were not so ignorant and prejudiced, you would know that the determination of who writes the opinion for the court is pretty much rotated. There is no “the special guy gets to write the big opinion.

          Again, if you are going to say that Thomas is not a significant force on the court because he didn’t write any big majority opinions, then you have to say the same about Marshall. And no one I am aware of would say that, except people who are still bitter about a black man being allowed to serve on the Court.

          1. Most of Thurgood Marshall’s “eloquent and passionate” opinions on the Court (if I may be permitted to speak like a prog) were in dissent – and he had a cut-and-paste dissent for every decision upholding the death penalty (because following precedent is something conservative judges have to do, not progs).

            1. Exactly. I don’t agree with Marshall but I would never say he wasn’t a force on the court. He was. Only an idiot, a racist, or both would say otherwise.

              1. I’ll say this much – he had more actual legal experience than is today customary on the Court – as in, going into courtrooms (not always welcoming courtrooms, either) and making his case for his clients. It didn’t make him a great legal thinker, but his clients were certainly well-served.

          2. I didn’t say that. I was responding to the article. So this kindergarten “see how you’re a racist and not me, a fucking Donald Trump supporter?” horsepucky is a bit shoehorned in, wouldn’t you say? Try again next time.

            1. Yes Tony, you are a racist. You don’t mean to be and you don’t mean harm by it but that is exactly what you are. You don’t see Thomas as a full human being. You see him as a black man and as such think that his holding opinions you don’t like makes him disagreeable in a way that a white justice is not. You might not like or agree with a white justice like Roberts but you would never call them stupid or insignificant. Yet, you call Thomas that. Why? Because you do not think he has a right to disagree with you in the same way a white man does. By virtue of being black, Thomas in your view is not allowed to think for himself and command respect in the same way that he would if he were white.

              That is textbook racism. And you are sick with it.

              1. Not that I need to defend myself from that insincere pile of mind-reading horseshit, but I gather that Thomas is quite fun socially and not at all an idiot. My only issues with him are philosophical. I have a more demographically based beef with Chief Justice Roberts, as it happens. He told his confirmation committee that he has a good appreciation of the diversity of human experience in America because of the people he meets at this kids’ soccer games. That doofus probably handed Justice Thomas his coat on his first day.

              2. Tony also hates poor people. He said so. Right here on H&R.

            2. Why can’t both of you be racists? Malcolm X and Strom Thurmond, maybe they would hate each other, doesn’t make them both not racists.

              1. Why am I a racist? Tony is the one who has a problem with black people being on the Supreme Court no me.

  21. Watch out successful black people. The blob needs blood to perpetuate their scam.

    There are no allies among cannibals.

    If you have money, are black, and are have not sworn allegiance to the scam, you will be eaten too.

  22. The GOP vows never to allow another SCOTUS nomination by a dem president. Never. This is planning to destroy the 3rd leg of our balance of powers – The Supreme Court. These traitors are fascist. Get rid of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.