"Thomas on the bench simply does not conform to expected judicial norms. He does not take part in the arguments before the Court. His decisions rest on unusual grounds, often not even mentioned in the briefs; he will not even air his idiosyncratic ideas at a time when others might engage them. He does not tend to limit himself to the issue presented or the factual context within which it is embedded. He is, in other words, not a judge at all."
Link (to The Atlantic).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
He's the only one of them who consistently makes sense to me.
Epps, in other words, is no legal scholar. What, he "teaches" law. So what. Aren't I free to express myself just as he is?
Actually he's a Justice; not a judge.
Read some real analysis of his work in this week's The Weekly Standard. Not only did he write a disproportionate number of opinions this term, they were scholarly works with a deep understanding of the constitution and display a rooted and consistent philosophy.
Just another name calling hatchet job (or a high-tech lynching) because the Libs can't abide a smart and conservative black man. Therefore he must be destroyed again and again.
Clarence, however, need not pay attention to this worm. He is probably on the road now in his RV with wife Ginny enjoying America.
What a moron.
Mr. Justice Thomas casts his one vote in every case in which he's not recused. It counts exactly the same as the votes cast by Mme. Justices Ginsburg, Sotamayor, and Kagan or Mr. Justice Breyer.
He writes opinions -- majority, plurality, and dissenting -- that are read and studied, and that have every bit as much precedential value as the opinions written by the aforesaid Justices.
Oral arguments are whispers in the wind above the beach of the sands of time: In the long- and even middle-terms, they count for nothing. Even after the argument, what counts is generally not so much what's been said during the oral argument as in the (exceedingly private) conference among the Justices, where by all of the very limited accounts available, Mr. Justice Thomas' voice is used and heard.
Epps hasn't got a clue what being a member of the Supreme Court actually entails.
The Libs are so pathetic that they trot out that trope that he doesn't ask questions at oral argument. So what?
And how can he get in a question anyway with Scalia and RBG taking up all the time anyway?
Well, at least it is a refreshing change from "Clarence Thomas is not a Black man".
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.
Less racist and condescending than George TaKKKei, one has to admint.
"Actually he's a Justice; not a judge."
A Justice is a Judge. Look at Article III:
ARTICLE III
SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office...
Clarence Thomas is a favorite subject of criticism in Mr. Epps's articles in the Atlantic. Mr. Epps did manage to go to Harvard, where he was editor of The Crimson, and he went to Duke Law where he was first in his class. So he's no dummy. That said I'm not blown away by professorships at the University of Oregon and the University of Baltimore. And Epps was, at various times, a journalist for the Richmond Virginia Afro-American and for the Washington Post.
So I surmise Epps is a smart black man, who has made a special study of legal history and the 14th Amendment. And as a legal scholar and professor of constitutional law, he's produced some serious academic work. But Epps swings from the left side of the plate, which affects his view of those who bat right handed.
I assume that Epps simply, and perhaps even sincerely, believes Justice Thomas is the "wrong kind" of African American to be on the Supreme Court. It's possible that Epps and others of his ilk use the word "Oreo" to describe such as Clarence Thomas.
Doesn't matter much--Thomas is on the "inside" of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and Mr. or er "Professor" Epps is sitting high up in the legal bleachers.
"So I surmise Epps is a smart black man..."
Epps is not black.
Ah Ann "Justice" versus "Judge".
I'm reminded of the wonderful line in Evita where the Admiral tells Evita (who is worrying about being called a "whore") that he (the Admiral) is still being called a "sailor" although it's been a long time since he was at sea.
Now if Ms. Althouse were perchance to get an opportunity to argue before the Supeme Court of the United States, I'd wager that you might preface your answer to a direct question from say Justice Alito, "Mr. Justice Alito" rather than "Mr. Judge Alito" Just sayin'-----
"Justice" is the proper form of address, but a Justice is still a judge.
To apply it to myself, if you were in my class, you'd want to call me "Professor Althouse," but that doesn't mean I'm not a teacher!
A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law.
It appears that a Justice has to be either Roman Catholic or Jewish and a Humanities major, unschooled in STEM. Thomas is the justice a person would prefer to share brats and beer with in a national park or forest, where you almost never see a black, brown or red face.
Mr. Epps may,or may not, be black. If you look at a photo of the man, you might well conclude that he was a light skinned African American.
But white, light, or black, his professional history and academic focus on the 14th Amendment would suggest that he's at least sympathetic to the Rachel Dolezel (sp?--how quickly we forget) "identification as black" view.
And yes, were I in your class, I'd address you as Professor Althouse. But just as I did with all my professors at Boalt Hall, I'd reserve judgment on the question as to whether you were a teacher. Not all professors of law are effective teachers. Some were teachers; some were hopeless (albeit perhaps brilliant legal scholars) and you had to dig it out for yourself.
If law school is supposed to teach you how to think, the single teacher who did most for me in that regard was an English professor in undergrad school. I had him for just a single semester, but he did more to teach critical thinking than anyone at Boalt (and the faculty at Boalt was solid and capable in the late 1960's).
Kennedy, Roberts, adn the four left wing scum are not judges, they're dictators in black robes, ruling based on their personal desires rather than the written law and written Constitution.
Justice Thomas, OTOH, is a real judge, who rules based on teh law. Which is why Epps hates him so.
Although Thomas is obviously a judge, the provocative tone of the piece does make some interesting points. It is true that, in non-unanimous decisions, Thomas often goes his own way in terms of the way he approaches and analyzes the issue, and sometimes in ways that were not a part of the official "question presented" for appeal or the focus of the parties' briefs. And since he never raises his perspective through questioning at oral argument, and since the conferences at which the justices vote and the majority and minority opinions get assigned are rather abbreviated, he does not really deliberate with his colleagues very much. This is reflected in the statistic from last term on rates of agreements between individual justices. He had the lowest rate of agreement of five of his eight colleagues. The Chief Justice agreed with him less than the Chief agreed with Breyer.
So, Epps is saying Thomas is a shiftless Negro?
God bless Anita Hill and the clowns that exploited her. They helped to make me a conservative.
“I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest. Or when, even as just now I've tried to articulate exactly what I felt to be the truth. No one was satisfied”
― Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man
Thomas is off the Liberal plantation.
Cracker, I see the inference being he is "an uppity nigger" in the eyes of this author and his ilk.
I've run across only a couple of men named Epps in my life; both were black.
Omar Epps of "House" fame is a third.
If I wanted to accuse some justice of wanting to overturn "a century or so of precedent", I'd like to think that I could come up with a better example than three precedents whose combined age is 33 years.
The ATLANTIC continually proves it is not worth my reading.
The comments are actually the most interesting part of that exercise. The leftist racism is on prominent display., Among others is an assertion that Thomas would not be there but for affirmative action. I wonder if they would apply that concept to the "Wise Latina?"
It is really quite educational and should be preserved, as it were, in amber to explain to posterity why the American experiment finally failed.
Once again a leftist informs the rest of us that he doesn't have opinions, he KNOWS FACTS!
Ceci n'est pas une juge.
So let's see...Thomas already wasn't an authentic black man, now he's not an authentic judge. Since calling his manhood into question would be taboo now given all things transgender, which reporter will be tasked with writing the article declaring Thomas isn't really a human being?
If he's not a judge he should not get a vote, right? I believe Garrett Epps is trying to disenfranchise a black man.
He is, in other words, not a judge at all."
Thus would speak the jawbone of an ass.
Has anyone actually read what Thomas has written? The critique seems to be name calling. My favorite is when the author claims he refers too much to the past, using references to common law and historical documents, but then accuses him of wanting to "govern the nation according to his own personal opinions".
Thomas is often the victim of two minutes hate on facebook/twitter, complete with an out of context soundbite. And quick: How often does the average American hear Thomas' nuances opinions except in these negative soundbites? Unless, of course, they are CSPAN junkies.
Harry Reid is an expert on Thomas' decisions., Maybe we should ask him.
Very amusing posts today. I'm having fun.
Some people are too quick to cry racial prejudice, and this is one of those times. Epps has a point, even if he overstates it a bit, and then spins off into outer space with the 'not a judge' stuff.
I enjoy reading Justice Thomas's opinions, but it's true that on the constitutional cases that attract the most attention, he often marches to his own tune. He is the least constrained by precedent, and typically urges the court to return to the original meaning of a particular constitutional provision, regardless of any contrary precedents. It's why his constitutional opinions read like a historical discourse, even more than Scalia's. That willingness to reject precedent is quite unusual in a common law court. His colleagues haven't shown much inclination to follow along.
Whether he will have an outsized impact on the course of the law depends quite a bit on who gets to appoint the justices to come, I.e., those who will replace the ones who are 15 to 20 years older than him. If the next few appointments result in a conservative replacing, say, RBG, Thomas may well become less of a voice in the wilderness and more a deliverer of the Law fron On High.
Now if Epps had said something similar about our president, he'd have a point.
Clarence voted against selective exclusion. He opposes institutional class diversity schemes. Does he recognize a constitutional right to commit indiscriminate killing (and wholesale trafficking of harvested baby parts)? He will never be accepted by the decent kids.
Good lord, the 4 reliable liberal votes on the court would not recognize an independent thought if it bit one of them in the touche, and this moron criticizes Justice Thomas for what exactly - not agreeing with him maybe.
"So I surmise Epps is a smart black man..."
"Epps is not black. "
And neither is he smart.
Not sure why you liked to the article other than for click bait. it was quite weak in discussing Thomas. Just the usual superficial stuff, with a nod towards his actually being smart. Nothing of real substance in the article and actually quite brief. Oh gosh, he is, at times, a lone dissenter. The author could actually try to convince us that he (the author) is smart, but, alas, misses the opportunity. I'm sure the loyal readers of the Atlantic have convinced themselves that they are smart, but who cares about lemmings.
if you were in my class, you'd want to call me "Professor Althouse,"
If you were teaching film school, we'd want to call you "Ann."
I think that first name thing shocked me as much as anything else!
Michael K,
Harry Reid is an expert on Thomas' decisions. Maybe we should ask him.
You mean the case in which Scalia wrote no dissent at all and Thomas wrote two sentences, and Reid argued that Scalia's was the work of a really, really smart man, whereas Thomas's was "an eighth-grade dissertation"? Yes, I do remember that. If there's a sorrier episode in the history of the House, I haven't heard of it.
Speaking of the name Ann, my mom is an Ann, and she tells me there is a secret Ann society. Whenever two Anns meet, they always ask each other (at least in the South), "Are you fancy Anne or plain Ann?" So they know how to spell it.
I've noticed quite often whenever somebody uses Althouse's first name on the message boards, they almost invariably turn her into fancy Anne, for some damn reason.
Anyway, one time my mom met a fancy Anne who had no idea that there was a secret Ann society. And my mom asked her, "Are you fancy Anne or plain Ann?" And she said, "Oh, I'm plain Ann!" But she was actually an Anne. She just had no idea what she was talking about.
So that's a heads up for all you Anns and Annes out there. Know who you are!
God bless Anita Hill and the clowns that exploited her. They helped to make me a conservative.
A kindred spirit.
I had voted nothing but straight Democratic tickets up until the night of the High-Tech Lynching. I have not voted for a Democrat since.
He seems instead to operate as a kind of would-be Platonic guardian, eager to govern the nation according to his own personal opinions—opinions to which law, and fact, and indeed reasoned argument, are all but irrelevant.
Leftists always project.
...and Reid argued that Scalia's was the work of a really, really smart man, whereas Thomas's was "an eighth-grade dissertation"? Yes, I do remember that. If there's a sorrier episode in the history of the House, I haven't heard of it.
Senate. Reid is a senator. And yes, he's one of the worst senators a state has ever inflicted on the rest of us. After so many years his Koch brothers fetish was starting to wear thin.
"Leftists always project."
There's not a big screen in the world big enough for that. Yet, they are blind to it.
Garrett Epps is not a human being. He's just a fetus and a retarded one at that.
And you know what needs to be done with retarded fetuses right, Left?
Racism is everywhere. It is surprising that the Atlantic would give space to a racist redneck like Epps. They probably have a Confederate battle flag hanging in the editor's office.
First Scalia, now Thomas.
You'd almost think there was a concentrated, media attempt to de-legitimatize the judges that the media don't agree with, while attempting to make people like the judges they do agree with.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Garrett Epps apparently agrees, having once called Judge Sotomayor "America's Justice of hearts".
But, he suggests Clarence Thomas does not reach wise decisions informed by the richness of his own experience.
Mr. Epps is often a cranky critic of the Court who pretends to be evenhanded. Nevertheless, I think he reveals himself as yet another commentator with an inconsistent, hostile and frankly suspicious attitude toward Judge Thomas personally.
My opinion? Mr. Epps' work is not to be trusted.
Eddie,
Did you also read "Atlas Shrugged"?
That did it for me.
- Cisco
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
That's a great quality for an elected positions. Sucks as someone that is tasked with protecting the people from a federal govt that seeks to ignore the constitution.
The federal govt has specific, enumerated, and constitutionally limited powers. Social security and medical insurance are not in those enumerated powers, I don't care how rich your experience, or that your culture imbues you with mystical wise-ness, it's not there.
The work product of Supreme Court justices is their written opinions. What they say at conferences, and the questions that they ask at oral argument, is ephemeral. However, their written opinions last forever and can be analyzed and torn apart - indeed, that is what our learned hostess does for a living. Any complaints about a Justice must necessarily turn on the quality of their written opinions. During the most recent term, Justice Thomas authored 37 opinions; Alito was second with 30. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SB_totalauthorship_OT14.pdf. All the Justices write approximately the same number of majority opinions; the difference is that Thomas wrote the most concurrences and the most dissents. Id. For a sympathetic analysis of Thomas's opinions, see http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/giving-thomas-his-due_988078.html. I guess I view Thomas as being a lot like Justice Douglas in his williingness to stake out an outlying position in dissent with the expectation that some day that position will become mainstream. In some cases (e.g., second amendment), it already has, much to the disappointment of Prof. Epps.
Matthew Sablan said...
First Scalia, now Thomas.
You'd almost think there was a concentrated, media attempt to de-legitimatize the judges that the media don't agree with, while attempting to make people like the judges they do agree with.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
"[Thomas] . . . will not even air his idiosyncratic ideas at a time when others might engage them."
It shows either (a) you how far down the Road to Serfdom we've gone when a basic commitment to individual liberty and limited government is seen as "idiosyncratic," or (b) what a State-f*cker Epps is, or (c) both.
He's a justice who believes that the breakdown of separation of powers is fatally flawed. And he's written more pages of opinions, concurrences, and dissents to help us understand how were screwing up. It's sad he's the only justice.
The Justices debate cases in conference after the arguments, then the CJ decides who will write the majority brief, and then they circulate briefs back and forth. There is no need to speak at oral argument other than to eat up the short time the parties have to argue what they think is important.
Why is it that Thomas doesn't write majority opinions in the big 5-4 cases very often, if at all? Is that because the chief doesn't want him to do it?
Furthermore, I recall Scalia calling Thomas a nut in part because he doesn't believe in state decisis.
*stare decisis
I've determined that Garrett Epps is not only not on the U.S. Supreme Court he is not a judge at all. He's rather a college professor, which is to say, a member of the perpetually envious class.
Post a Comment