11 votes

Clarence Thomas Scolds Colleagues For Talking Too Much At Oral Arguments

Clarence Thomas Scolds Colleagues For Talking Too Much At Oral Arguments

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended his silence during the oral arguments last week on President Obama's healthcare law and scolded his colleagues for talking too much.

“I don’t see where that advances anything,” Thomas said of peppering attorneys with questions, according to The Associated Press. “Maybe it’s the Southerner in me. Maybe it’s the introvert in me, I don’t know. I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”

Thomas has gained notoriety for his silence from the bench — the Supreme Court justice has not asked a question since 2006. No other Supreme Court justice has made it through a single year without asking a question.

Thomas defended his decision to stay mum during a 90-minute panel on Thursday evening that was moderated by the dean of the University of Kentucky's law school.
“I don’t need to hold your hand, help you cross the street to argue a case. I don’t need to badger you," Thomas said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/220311-clar...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Kagen and Sotomayor both made me sick with their speaches

I was especially disgusted with the way Kagen continuously reffered to the court as "we", often bringing up past cases well before she was even considered for the court and saying "we held.. " As if to bring credibility to herself.

Kagen deserves to be impeached for the obvious conflict of interest that exists on the health insurance debacle case and her refusal to recuse herself.

I listened to the Supremes Hearing This Case

several times! Very very interesting. I think it's interesting that Thomas is saying "I don't need to hold your hand to cross the street". That could have been pointed at Sotomayer and Kegan, who were sort of boosting the attorney solicitor general. Kegan even feeding the general with comments/angles. That might have annoyed Clarence Thomas, but only he knows. I pray he isn't an Obama fan. And on the other side of the spectum, mostly the conservative judges ask a question, then start badgering the attorneys before they can even finish! For brand new justices they didn't hold back. Kegan got it handed to her! I loved it when she asks Paul Clement what if I'm going to hire you for ten million dolar a year? Are you going to question where that money comes from? She freaks out when he says yes. Why? He says yes I would, if it was coming from my own pocket! Another surpirse, in my opinion, I found out that Ginsberg isn't as smart as I thought she would have been. Paul Clement, attorney for 26 states, former solicitor general for the supremes - well he ROCKS!

Too bad he and the other

Too bad he and the other so-called conservative judges (and Kennedy) held the majority opinion that it is okay to be strip searched in jail, no matter what the offense is.

liberty lover in Nor Cal!

Yes it Is!

And, foriegn corporations can spend unlimited ananymous money to influence our publically elected servants.

You think that's bad?

Check out his dissenting opinion in Hamdi. The best SCOTUS justice is by far Scalia.

Didn't Scalia rule with the

Didn't Scalia rule with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich?

No, both Scalia and Thomas wrote dissenting opinions.

No, both Scalia and Thomas wrote dissenting opinions in Gonzales. That case stood no chance though after the Court's holding in Filburn. Filburn was the beginning of the downfall of state and individual rights where the Court allowed Congress to use the Commerce Clause to basically do anything they want. In Filburn, they held that an individual could not grow wheat for their own personal use because it would result in people buying less wheat and thus affect interstate commerce. They said people had to grow and sell the exact amount of wheat the government told them to, and no more. Pretty absurd.

Scalia On Commerce Clause (Gonzales v Raich)

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/204714.html

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I stand corrected

I could have sworn Scalia dissented there. Regardless those cases came after Filburn which gave Congress the power to do whatever it wants. Gonzales couldn't have been found unconstitutional unless the SCOTUS overturned Filburn and practically all of their precedent regarding interstate commerce since the New Deal. But the mandate is a slightly different case, so it could go either way.

Well Filburn should be

Well Filburn should be overturned so that's not an excuse

I agree 100%

I agree with you 100%, but if Filburn was overturned, it would affect decades of Supreme Court precedent so the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Filburn: The Farmer was receiving a subsidy

The Farmer was growing wheat to feed his turkeys. The Farmer also was receiving a subsidy from the U.S.

It is hardly lack of Due Process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes. Wickard v Fiburn

Also,

When ever the Government has the right to regulate anything, it has a right to destroy. McColloch v. Maryland

Now ask yourself this. What subsidies (benefits) am I receiving from the Government? If you are receiving a subsidy from another, are you truly free?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Subsidies played no roll in the Court's final decision

Subsidies played virtually no roll in the Court's final decision. They may have mentioned it in their opinion, but it was not a factor in determining whether or not the government can regulate private activity that does not directly affect interstate commerce.

Also, not sure why you mentioned "hardly a lack of Due Process" while speaking of Filburn.. That case had nothing to do with due process, it was strictly related to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

The Farmer was accepting a Benefit (Parity Loan)

Where Secretary of Agriculture by radio address urged wheat farmers to vote affirmatively in referendum on approval of quota allotment under pending Agricultural Adjustment Act amendment which increased penalty for farm marketing excess, but secretary did not indicate that in accepting benefits of increased parity loan farmers were subjecting themselves to increased penalties, the speech did not invalidate the referendum and did not furnish basis for injunction against collection of marketing penalty imposed under the amendment. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., as amended and Amendment of May 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. and § 1340.

The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states, but it extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exertion of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the effective execution of the granted power to regulate “interstate commerce.” U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.

The Supreme Court is not concerned with the wisdom, workability, or fairness of plan of regulation provided by the Agricultural Adjustment Act as amended. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., as amended and Amendment of May 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., and § 1340.

An act of Congress is not to be refused application by court as arbitrary and capricious and forbidden by the “due process of law” merely because the act is deemed in a particular case to work an inequitable result. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.

Where, as a result of the wheat programs under the Agricultural Adjustment Act as amended, a wheat grower is able to market his wheat at a price far above any world price based on natural reaction of supply and demand, the act is not invalid as a deprivation of property without “due process of law” on theory that the Fifth Amendment requires that grower be free from penalty for threshing wheat and disposing of his crop as he sees fit. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., as amended and Amendment of May 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq. and § 1340; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.

Where, between seed time and harvest, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was amended so as to change the quota and penalty provisions, but the penalty provided by the amendment for farm marketing excess is incurred and becomes due only on threshing, and it did not appear that wheat grower was worse off for the aggregate of the legislation, but only that if he could get all that the government gives and do nothing that the government asks, he would be better off than the act allowed, such facts did not establish that the amendment was invalidly “retroactive” or that it denied “due process of law”. Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., as amended and Amendment of May 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., and § 1340; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

You seem to be confused

If you're looking for the latest authority regarding the ICC just read the Lopez opinion dealing with regulating guns around public schools using the Commerce Clause.

Still irrelevant to the courts decision

Not sure what you're trying to show here, this decision's importance to Con Law and its subsequent precedential use with respect to the Commerce Clause is very straight forward

Are the decisions Stare Decisis or Res Judicata

Is the decision constitutional on its face? Or is the decision unconstitutional as it applies to me? Was a contract involved, or an acceptance of benefits? Does it involve equity? Or does it involve property?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

According to me

100% unconstitutional. But it's the case the SCOTUS has now used for decades to justify virtually any action of Congress as constitutional under the "commerce power."

These five cases might illustrate my thoughts.

Look at these holdings and flesh them out. Then put them together and see what you come up with. Picture them in a brief.

Wickard v Filburn
McColloch v Maryland
Hale v Henkel
The TVA cases
Wisconsin v Yoder

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Lol you lost me a while back

Instead of copying and pasting a bunch of authorities, just say what you're trying to say. I'm sure we agree on whatever it is you're trying to say.

Public Interest v. Private Interest

If you do not want to engage in dialog because you are too busy, that's OK. I understand school demands a lot of your time.

Here is the Very, Very, short story.

1) The Government can regulate that which it subsidizes or that which affects a public interest. See Wickard

2) The Government has a right to destroy that which it regulates. See McColloch

3) There must be a genuine controversy for the court to attain jurisdiction. See the TVA cases.

4) A person can go about his PRIVATE business in any way he sees fit, so long as said business does not affect a public interest. See Hale v Henkel

5) Laws that are NOT unconstitutional on its face CAN be unconstitutional as it applies to an individual. See Yoder

6) The supreme law is the decalog. See Seeger v US

There are of-course many more laws (decalog) and holdings that apply also. I could list a hundred more cases that funnel the holdings to a sharp point.

Also, there are the War Powers and the Doctrine of Emergency that also apply.

All the Best.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Exactly. His post wasn't

Exactly. His post wasn't really relevant to the substance of Wickard v. Filburn. I don't get his last part about subsidies, cause I, like most people here, am not in favor of them. In Filburn, the Court held that the feds had the power to order farmers not to grow a certain amount of wheat for personal consumption, because doing so would affect interstate commerce. The fact that he was receiving subsidies was irrelevant to the court's decision

In my opinion

Thomas is the least worse Supreme Court Justice. I know that is not saying much as it is not hard to be less worse since the court is filled with bums.

In my opinion

Thomas is the least worse Supreme Court Justice. I know that is not saying much as it is not hard to be less worse since the court is filled with bums.