Today in Supreme Court History: October 23, 1991

10/23/1991: Justice Clarence Thomas takes oath.

Justice Clarence Thomas

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5 (decided October 23, 1973): denies application for citizenship by Philippines-born veteran who fought there and was imprisoned there by the Japanese because the Nationality Act of 1940 (as amended), which made citizenship available for any non-citizen who served honorably in World War II, set 12/31/46 deadline for applications, even though Nationality Act provisions were never publicized in the Philippines and there was no office there where one could apply (Hibi didn’t apply for citizenship until he moved to the United States in 1964); no equitable tolling because no “affirmative misconduct” by Government (Douglas, Brennan and Marshall dissent)

Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (decided October 23, 1967): confession by black defendant of rape-murder of white woman when in hospital recovering from police gunshot wounds and under the influence of painkillers was not voluntarily made (defendant had already made a confession, but it was at the scene and at gunpoint)

Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. 99 (decided October 23, 1882): diversity jurisdiction exists where real party in interest defendant (executor who made off with estate funds) is out of state even when nominal defendants (co-executors who had an interest in the dispute but against whom no claim is being made) are in-state

[Sarcastr0]

Is ignoring precedent, not even to explain that it's wrong, so you can over and over substitute your personal take, doing the job of a Justice?

Thomas is fiercely smart, hires clerks not just from Harvard and Yale, and I find his writing style one of the clearest on the Court.

But he doesn't understand what his job is supposed to be.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An affirmative action hire.

[Frank Drackman]

If my man Clarence is, so are Kagrungy Jackson Brown, Cums-a-lot Harris, and I dare say, Barry Hussein Osama.

[not guilty]

Remind me who hired Barack Obama.

Truth be told, Katanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O'Connor and Thurgood Marshall were all affirmative action appointments to some extent. Guess which two had the thinnest resumés.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Guess which two had the thinnest resumés."

Guess who had their days of greatness behind them on their appointment to the court, and who had their days of greatness ahead of them when they were appointed.

[Joe_dallas]

The first havent distinquished themselves on the court. Read the dissent in Schuette.

[Bob from Ohio]

"An affirmative action hire."

Left wing racism. Surprised you left off the Uncle Clarence.

[jb]

Well I'm glad we agree that the sentiment is, indeed, pretty racist. I'm sure you'll be calling people out when they use the term to describe someone other than Thomas.

[Sarcastr0]

As jb noted it's telling that's where you take it - I took it as a hypocrisy ding, not a 'he's not smart' ding.

But I guess to you, affirmative action can only mean one thing about ability.
Which is pretty racist!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Affirmative Action isn't a merit based system.

Even you should know this.

[Dan Schiavetta]

For the snark-impaired: it was a hypocrisy ding.

[SRG2]

Sometimes, when he dissents on grounds of not wanting to agree, his writing descends into a morass of lengthy incoherent paragraphs finishing with a QED.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair. I'm thinking of him writing the opinion of the Court.

His dissents can get pretty abstruse.

[Frank Drackman]

"Abstruse"? is that a real word? Sounds like a Carnac the Magnificent answer.
I'd give my man Clarence T a lifetime appointment just for this opinion alone
“I write separately only to point out, in response to the separate opinion of Justice Kennedy, that the accommodations in which Ayala is housed are a far sight more spacious than those in which his victims, Ernesto Dominguez Mendez, Marcos Antonio Zamora and Jose Luis Rositas, now rest. And, given that his victims were all 31 years of age or under, Ayala will soon have had as much or more time to enjoy those accommodations as his victims had time to enjoy this earth.”

[FivebySixThree]

Damn, I learned a new word.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Abstruse” is one of those words which encapsulate its meaning. The word abstruse is, itself, abstruse.

Another is "sesquipedalian".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"words which encapsulate its meaning"

Is there a good word for that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Autological.

[SRG2]

Leading to the heterological paradox.

[Swede425]

It's a perfectly cromulent word.
And it's usage embiggens us all.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the William F. Buckley award goes to:

[Bob from Ohio]

"But he doesn’t understand what his job is supposed to be."

Feeling hyper arrogant today I see. Failed scientist, failed lawyer, government drone knows the job of justice better than a man who has been one for 33 years.

[Commenter_XY]

That makes me chuckle too, BfO. Hope Justice Thomas is still going strong at 90.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, you're not going to make me feel bad about this important job I found that I turn out to be incredible at.

Feeling extra ad hominem, I guess.

Any thoughts about the argument I made?

[Bob from Ohio]

Better dust up your resume. Project 2025 is coming!!

[Sarcastr0]

So that's a no on engaging with my argument then.

[Commenter_XY]

You don't have the chops to make the argument.

[Bob from Ohio]

Exactly.

[Life of Brian]

Project 2025 is coming!!

Dunno about Project 2025, but I suspect Elon Musk's upcoming Department of Governmental Efficiency might want to sit down for a chat.

[SimonP]

It's coming for all of us, bub. Don't think you're getting off scot-free.

[Life of Brian]

this important job I found that I turn out to be incredible at.

Sitting around shitposting on the Internet all day? I was right there with you until the "important" part.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Sitting around shitposting on the Internet all day?"
...and of course he is going this on his government employer's dime.

[Mr. Bumble]

"doing"

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know my job requirements, or my hours, or basically anything.

It's kinda messed up how you guys make up how I work so you can be mad at it.

[Life of Brian]

Who's mad, bro? I'm actually doubled over with laughter over you puffing up and thumping your chest about the "importance" of your angel-pinhead-handy-wavy gig funded by my tax dollars.

And you probably could tip that belly laugh over into a full-on gasping for air if you tried claiming it's anything remotely outside 9-5 territory.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

If laws are all that clear, then how can justices split 5-4, and yet only Uncle Thomas is in the wrong?

Lawyers ought not be in charge of anything. They are a pox on the world. Unfortunately, in this world, they are necessary. Your reaction to a black man stepping outside his white-determined lane is pure racism.

[Sarcastr0]

The other Justices grapple with precedent, at least most of the time.

Which is a big part of how our jurisprudence was understood originally, and how it's operated ever since.

Yeah, they reach outcomes I disagree with. But they are at least gesturing at doing the job of a Justice.

(But see Gorsuch's 'lets make up a whole new rights jurisprudence' push that's shot the 2A in the foot for at least a decade, and Alito being a tool who seems to find precedent an inconvenience.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Gorsuch likes "just so" stories and his new book has some.

This is true even when liberals like his opinions. His opinions about Native Americans come to mind.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not responsive. Let me cut that down to the bare minimum, without the Uncle Thomas bait which distracted you.

"If laws are all that clear, then how can justices split 5-4?"

[Sarcastr0]

'The laws are all clear' is arguing against a strawman. When did I ever say anything like that?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 38 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The other Justices grapple with precedent, at least most of the time.

That is why Kelo came out the way it did. Plain meaning of the constitution should always come first, not precedent.

[EscherEnigma]

So incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states was wrong, then.

[Joe_dallas]

You comment on incorporation makes zero sense.

My comment was that following bad precedent is how Kelo was decided against the plain meaning of the constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

Plain meaning isn't what Joe_dallas says it's gotta be.

Respect for precedent is at least a little about having the humility to realize that you aren't the one with the only valid take on what the Constitution says.

That doesn't mean slavishly follow it, but it does mean don't discard it because you don't like the outcome it points to, waiving you hand at 'plain meaning.'

[Brett Bellmore]

"The other Justices grapple with precedent, at least most of the time."

While Thomas instead grapples with his oath of office, which conspicuously doesn't mention precedent.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone else is lying except Thomas.

Yeah, we know. You find bad faith everywhere.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think I’ll try talking like a progressive:

What was the race of the Justices who created all these precedents which Thomas is supposed to obediently follow?

[verochkax]

Leftists like yourself only care about ignoring precedent when it's precedent you don't like. You were thrilled when Kennedy ruled in Lawrence v. Texas to reverse Bowers v. Hardwick and rule that you and your butt buddy friends had the right to bareback each other to completion.

But when Roe was reversed, you lost your mind.

[hobie]

The first justice to gain more than $4,000,000 in career earnings

[Frank Drackman]

$4 million? Who’s dick did you have to take out of your ass to pull out that number? William Douglas spent more than that on Alimony for his 3 Ex-wives(corrected for inflation, and like Kramer with the mulching, you’ve gotta correct for inflation, you got to)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

This was when America learned that some Black men are more equal than others...

[Sarcastr0]

Love it when Ed pretends he speaks for anyone in America but himself.

I presume the countdown till he abuses the word 'lynching' is not long.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto has never heard of the men named Lynch and their pursuit of Loyalists during the American Revolution.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

And you presume to speak for everybody in your opinions on Uncle Thomas.

I'd say pot, kettle, black, but that would probably trigger new heights of racist comments from the local racism expert.

[Sarcastr0]

Where did I presume to speak for anyone but myself? I put forth an argument.

I did not say 'America believes Thomas does a bad job.'

Seems a pretty easy distinction to make.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

10/23/19: Paul Clement is appointed to defend the argument below regarding the question presented in SEILA LAW LLC v. CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU.

The case involves the removal power. The Supreme Court made some stuff up (imho) and Kagan had the better of the argument in dissent. She might have dissented from the bench if they showed up. They didn’t since it was in the middle of height of COVID.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Clarence Thomas is approaching the record for tenure.

His confirmation was dubious — both for the seedy reasons that causes a lot of drama & because it is dubious if he ready for the job.

But many justices over the years were chosen without being greats. The test would be his service on the bench.

Personally, he is much beloved, including for knowing everyone’s name. Sarcast0 questions his legal judgment. I think there is something to the criticism. He became a hero to conservatives.

He has also shown himself to be unethical. I recently re-read William Rehnquist’s book Grand Inquests, a down to earth amateur historian’s take on the impeachments of Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson.

Both are now seen as misguided partisan impeachments, rightly failed. Still, we should not read too much into the failures. Sometimes, challenges are valid, and not wrongminded invasions of the branches of government.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and

This applies both to Trump v. U.S. & the push for suitable limits on judges supposedly serving for “good behavior.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"if he ready"

If you are attacking competency, better proof your comment

[Estragon]

“knows the job of justice better than a man who has been one for 33 years”

LOL. He’s been a job for 33 years?? Maybe “proof” that one too while you’re at it.

Typo pedantry from top-notch grammarians is always a treat. Then again—hypocrisy has been a specialty of yours from time to time.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Show the typo. You can't. There isn't one.

[Estragon]

“Show the typo”

Show me where I said there was a typo. Can you read?

[Bob from Ohio]

There is no grammar error either

Pedant heal thyself.

[Estragon]

“A man who has been one” refers back to “the job” as written. “Of justice” is a clause describing the job.

See how much clearer this is?

“… knows the job better than a man who has been a justice for 33 years.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

Grammatically, I think either job or justice could be the antecedent of one; semantically, of course, only the latter could be. It’s arguably not the most elegantly phrased construction in light of the marginal ambiguity, but I don’t think there’s an error. Not, of course, that that makes Bob from Ohio’s own nitpicking any less dumb.

[Estragon]

I suppose there’s a conversation to be had about the propriety of dangling modifiers in various contexts, but what was offered is certainly ambiguous as written.

If associate Bob had brought me this in something that was supposed to go to the court or to op, I would strike and modify in the way I suggested. A good example of clear and concise writing from a lawyer, it ain’t.

And of course your point about semantics is extremely well taken and quite obviously correct— however there was a certain irresistible irony in the contrast between the brain-dead typo burn and the grammatically suspect sentence posted in the very same thread.

The typo burn in the age of phones is so silly. Many attorneys in my jurisdiction even have a “please excuse typos” phrase in their signature block nowadays it happens so often.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You mean this?

LOL. He’s been a job for 33 years?? Maybe “proof” that one too while you’re at it.

Typo pedantry from top-notch grammarians is always a treat. Then again—hypocrisy has been a specialty of yours from time to time.

[Krayt]

Congressional approval is supposed to cure all doubts of dubiousness. That’s why it’s there.

I laugh as I say that, but there you go.

Now let's get back to electing one of the emminently competent Harris or Trump!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congressional approval is supposed to cure all doubts of dubiousness. That’s why it’s there.

It doesn't cure all doubts. It's there as a safeguard. It isn't magic.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If even AOC wants to impeach Thomas, the walls must be closing in.

[jdgalt1]

The only thing dubious about Thomas' confirmation is the blatant lies from the #metoo folks to try to stop it -- something Kavanaugh also had to suffer through. On the plus side, once they do that to three or four more justices it will stop working against any target.

[Estragon]

Was Thomas friends with Harlan Crowe before or after this event?

At least Anthony Welters had a plausible claim to friendship with Thomas prior to this.

[Estragon]

And had he been, do you think he would have done his swearing-in at Harlan’s Nazi memorabilia museum ala James Ho?

[Commenter_XY]

Justice Clarence Thomas is an authentic American hero. This is a man who came from incredibly low circumstances, from rural GA and experienced Jim Crow up close and personal as a child, and young man. Who among us can say the same? Not very many.

It is true that Justice Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. What I would say in response is that Justice Thomas made the most of the opportunity and has served our country honorably, with distinction, on SCOTUS for decades.

I don't have to agree with his judicial philosophy or his opinions to understand and appreciate the hurdles he overcame to get where he is today. I know that as an American, it would be a great honor just to meet him.

I thought his documentary, Created Equal, was very well done and told a compelling story. In America, it doesn't matter what your origins are. Here, we can be nearly anything we want if we set our minds to it. It is almost magical. Boy, that grandfather of his sounded pretty rough.

There are a lot of Justice Thomas naysayers. Too many. Justice Thomas is a great American, and an example we should try to emulate (to rise from poor circumstance by dint of your own effort -- and maybe some helping hands along the way).

[Estragon]

“Clarence Thomas is an authentic American hero”

As I’ve said around here more than once— you get the heroes you deserve.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I will go along with some of this. I respect how far he has risen. I will not belittle his intelligence or the like as some cheap shots.

I don’t think he served “honorably” in various respects.

The naysayers have regularly quite adequately spelled out their reasons.

Andrew Johnson rose from obscurity to become president, and people were right to criticize the guy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree.

And remember that at his confirmation hearing he lied about his history of harassment and compared himself to Emmett Till.

[verochkax]

No, Anita Hill was the one who lied.

Emmett Till was a garden variety thug who whistled at and threatened a white woman. The world was better off with him dead.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Shit, where do these commenters come from? Where’s Kirkland when we need him?

Another mute.

[hobie]

I'd certainly like to emulate his ability to obtain graft and enrich myself. I could use the millions

[verochkax]

I met him at a FedSoc event. He's hilarious too.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other words, you don't know what honor or distinction actually mean.

Thomas is as nakedly corrupt as a judge can get. No wonder you praise him.

[verochkax]

If you want to see nakedly corrupt, that would be Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May her memory not be a blessing and may she be forced to eat pork in hell.

[verochkax]

Now Heels up is saying Trump wants dictator power, leaving aside her boss' going outside the law to run amok with student loan vote buying.

These people are anti-American traitors. They belong in Zyklon B showers.

[EscherEnigma]

Is this the part where you brush off Trump literally saying he was going to be a dictator on day 1 as "just a joke"?

[verochkax]

I don't believe that he said that.

[EscherEnigma]

Then go watch the interview yourself. It's arguable it was a joke, but it's simply a matter of record that it happened.

[apedad]

[EscherEnigma]

Thomas sided with Texas in Lawrence v. Texas. He can FOAD.

[verochkax]

Oh no, were your feewings hurt that someone doesn't think you have a Constitutional right to shoot an HIV infected load into your "husband?"

[EscherEnigma]

For someone not involved in it, you are --like the State of Texas-- way too interested in my sex life.

[verochkax]

Do you take your taxpayer funded PrEP on time?

[SRG2]

Let us say that Thomas serves the Court with distinction...

[Dan Schiavetta]

I would even call him “superlative”.