:blink:

No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence.

A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas's epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like "Saving Private Ryan."

He talks freely about the burdens of the job.

"I tend to be morose sometimes," he told the winners of a high school essay contest in 2009. "There are some cases that will drive you to your knees."

Continues here:

http://www.nytimes.c...lines&emc=tha23

LaoPo

Clever man.

No one can criticise his lack of knowledge, lack of erudition, if he keeps his mouth shut.

He has got to the top of the heap and has no need to demonstrate his capabilities any more.

I assume that he sometimes authors the judgement in an appeal case, or the dissenting review. That is all he need do - turn up, consider each case before him and offer a judgement.

Clever man.

No one can criticise his lack of knowledge, lack of erudition, if he keeps his mouth shut.

He has got to the top of the heap and has no need to demonstrate his capabilities any more.

I assume that he sometimes authors the judgement in an appeal case, or the dissenting review. That is all he need do - turn up, consider each case before him and offer a judgement.

February 16, 2011

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter?

Introduction

Mark Wilson/Getty Images Justice Clarence Thomas. It will be five years next week since Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during oral argument at the Supreme Court. Before falling into this long silence, he posed a question on Feb. 22, 2006. In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

Read the Discussion »

NEW YORK TIMES:

http://www.nytimes.c...-silence-matter

LaoPo

Thomas is well known for his reticence during oral argument. As of February 12, 2011, he had not asked a question from the bench in almost 5 years. He has given many reasons for his silence, including self-consciousness about how he speaks, a preference for listening to those arguing the case, and difficulty getting in a word. In 2000, he told a group of high school students that "if you wait long enough, someone will ask your question." In November 2007, he told an audience at Hillsdale College: "My colleagues should shut up!" He later explained, "I don't think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary." Thomas's speaking and listening habits may have also been influenced by his Gullah upbringing, during which time his English was relatively unpolished.

Wiki

This article is from the NY Times, generally considered to be one of the most liberal rags in the US. Justice Thomas generally sides with the conservative opinion makers.

Most Americans pay little attention to the NYT.

Edit in: Let me change that to "Many Americans" or it will create a firestorm of debate about my choice of words.

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

LP:

Please tell me you are not reduced to believing the "comments" section of the NY Times...or any other "comments" section.

The comments under an opinion piece?

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

LP:

Please tell me you are not reduced to believing the "comments" section of the NY Times...or any other "comments" section.

I only believe my own eyes and follow my own opinion and that's why I wrote:

"There's an interesting Debate on:"

But I'm always interested in other people's opinions.

Maybe you can direct me to a more important U.S. news source or newspaper who won more Pulitzer prices rather than the NYT with 104 ?....the so called "The Old Gray Lady"?

Or should I start reading and believing the rather small Haaretz?

Sorry but I prefer the NYT rather than the Haaretz which is too opinionated and biased IMO.

If you don't mind I stick to a few quality news sources like the NYT, The Guardian, Frankfurter Allgemeine and a few other European (language) financial sources and for me, that's more than enough.

But, I appreciate your concern.

LaoPo

If you don't mind I stick to a few quality news sources like the NYT, The Guardian, Frankfurter Allgemeine and a few other European (language) financial sources and for me, that's more than enough.

Like the comments under an opinion piece in the NYT?

Yeah there's a lot of people out there don't like the New York Times.

The Ochs Sulzberger Family

I bet he likes the comments section. Many of the loonier Thai Visa members seem to post there and they seem to get most of their "information" from that link.

If you don't mind I stick to a few quality news sources like the NYT, The Guardian, Frankfurter Allgemeine and a few other European (language) financial sources and for me, that's more than enough.

Like the comments under an opinion piece in the NYT?

Try to debate instead your infamous one-liners or keep silent like Clarence Thomas does.

I would be so nice and tranquil here

LaoPo

^^

When I find I share an opinion with people like that, I consider it time to reconsider my opinion.

Try to debate instead your infamous one-liners or keep silent like Clarence Thomas does.

Posting advice from the cut-and-paste man.

Pointing out ridiculous sources for very questionable opinions is part of debate.

^^

When I find I share an opinion with people like that, I consider it time to reconsider my opinion.

Yes, there is little doubt that Zulzburger would agree with this statement.

"Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice".

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

LP:

Please tell me you are not reduced to believing the "comments" section of the NY Times...or any other "comments" section.

I only believe my own eyes and follow my own opinion and that's why I wrote:

"There's an interesting Debate on:"

But I'm always interested in other people's opinions.

Maybe you can direct me to a more important U.S. news source or newspaper who won more Pulitzer prices rather than the NYT with 104 ?....the so called "The Old Gray Lady"?

Or should I start reading and believing the rather small Haaretz?

Sorry but I prefer the NYT rather than the Haaretz which is too opinionated and biased IMO.

If you don't mind I stick to a few quality news sources like the NYT, The Guardian, Frankfurter Allgemeine and a few other European (language) financial sources and for me, that's more than enough.

But, I appreciate your concern.

LaoPo

Above all, it is interesting to note you don't consider the NY Times to be opinionated and biased.

I'm not the only one that questions the NYT.

______________________________________________________

Feds spy on reporter in leak probe

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 2/24/11 11:06 PM EST Updated: 2/25/11 12:15 PM EST

Federal investigators trying to find out who leaked information about a CIA attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program obtained a New York Times reporter’s three private credit reports, examined his personal bank records and obtained information about his phone calls and travel, according to a new court filing.

The scope and intrusiveness of the government’s efforts to uncover reporter James Risen’s sources surfaced Thursday in the criminal case of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer facing federal criminal charges for allegedly disclosing classified information. Sterling is accused of giving Risen details about what Risen describes as the CIA’s plan to give Iran faulty nuclear blueprints, hoping to temporarily thwart the regime’s ambitions to build an atomic bomb.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50168.html#ixzz1F2Z9j3SF

You're using Politico as an example of opinionated and biased reporting I presume?

It's funny to conclude that the negative brigade in Outside the Box always come up with negative views.

Seldom, they come up with alternatives (for the NYT for instance) and they've ALWAYS answers but refrain from positive feedback.

In this case I wrote about an interesting debate about Clarence Thomas in the NYT -nothing more nothing less- and guess what happens

The messenger attacked.

Low.

LaoPo

It's funny to conclude that the negative brigade in Outside the Box always come up with negative views.

Seldom, they come up with alternatives (for the NYT for instance) and they've ALWAYS answers but refrain from positive feedback.

In this case I wrote about an interesting debate about Clarence Thomas in the NYT -nothing more nothing less- and guess what happens

The messenger attacked.

Low.

LaoPo

Hold on there, Buckshot.

I questioned the source of your information as being liberal and then asked why you would bother to refer to anything in the "comments" section.

The messenger was not attacked, but the source material was. :jap:

You're using Politico as an example of opinionated and biased reporting I presume?

Nope. Just a source reporting a Federal investigation of a NYT's reporter.

Having said that, Politico is generally more liberal than I like, but I read both sides and than throw out anything coming from the right.

The messenger was not attacked, but the source material was. :jap:

The comments underneath an opinion piece!

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

Anita Hill told the truth? LOL

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

Anita Hill told the truth? LOL

Interesting question and I assume you have proof that she was lying, suggesting she was... ?

Please steer me to the proof you have.

Hmmm...

LaoPo

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

Anita Hill told the truth? LOL

Interesting question and I assume you have proof that she was lying, suggesting she was... ?

Please steer me to the proof you have.

Hmmm...

LaoPo

There is zero proof she was telling the truth. It was her word against Thomas' - that's all. If she were believable, Thomas wouldn't have been confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate..

There's an interesting Debate on:

The Lone Dissenter - in Room for Debate:

Comment #20 in the link below:

"Anita Hill told the truth during Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings and has told the truth about him since. Thomas is not morally or intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows that, and it's the reason for his silence, oral and written."

http://www.nytimes.c...-lone-dissenter

LaoPo

Anita Hill told the truth? LOL

Interesting question and I assume you have proof that she was lying, suggesting she was... ?

Please steer me to the proof you have.

Hmmm...

LaoPo

There is zero proof she was telling the truth. It was her word against Thomas' - that's all. If she were believable, Thomas wouldn't have been confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate..

..That's putting my question upside down.

At least....

"Anita Hill agreed to take a polygraph test which found that her statements were true. Clarence Thomas refused to take a polygraph test."

Clarence Thomas controversy

http://en.wikipedia....mas_controversy

But, as a matter of fact, I don't care; it's just fascinating why a member of the Supreme Court keeps his mouth shut for more than 5 years, just sitting there.....but has a remarkable interest in sex and porn.

Fascinating indeed.

It's also fascinating to read that Mr. Clarence Thomas' wife, Mrs Virginia Thomas, phoned Ms Anita Hill* at 7.31AM on a Saturday morning, Oct 9th, 2010, almost 20 years (!) after the alleged accusations, to ask her if she's prepared to offer her apologies.

Very weird but fascinating.

She left a message on Ms Hill's Office answering machine:

* "Good morning Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas," it said. "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband."

Ms. Thomas went on: "So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day."

http://www.nytimes.c...s/20thomas.html

Very weird but fascinating and also...very weird people.

LaoPo

..That's putting my question upside down.

At least....

"Anita Hill agreed to take a polygraph test which found that her statements were true. Clarence Thomas refused to take a polygraph test."

Clarence Thomas controversy

http://en.wikipedia....mas_controversy

But, as a matter of fact, I don't care; it's just fascinating why a member of the Supreme Court keeps his mouth shut for more than 5 years, just sitting there.....but has a remarkable interest in sex and porn.

Fascinating indeed.

It's also fascinating to read that Mr. Clarence Thomas' wife, Mrs Virginia Thomas, phoned Ms Anita Hill* at 7.31AM on a Saturday morning, Oct 9th, 2010, almost 20 years (!) after the alleged accusations, to ask her if she's prepared to offer her apologies.

Very weird but fascinating.

She left a message on Ms Hill's Office answering machine:

* "Good morning Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas," it said. "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband."

Ms. Thomas went on: "So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day."

http://www.nytimes.c...s/20thomas.html

Very weird but fascinating and also...very weird people.

LaoPo

1) Polygraphs are not reliable. That is why their results are not admissible in court. I would refuse to take one as well. If I were a good liar, I wouldn't mind.

2) The wife asks the woman who tried to ruin (some would say successully) her husbands life to apologise on the 20th anniversary of the attack. Being the anniversary it was in the news again so I don't see what is too strange about it.

1) Polygraphs are not reliable. That is why their results are not admissible in court. I would refuse to take one as well. If I were a good liar, I wouldn't mind.

2) The wife asks the woman who tried to ruin (some would say successully) her husbands life to apologise on the 20th anniversary of the attack. Being the anniversary it was in the news again so I don't see what is too strange about it.

1). We all know that but at least she took the test and Thomas refused; she came clear so his results will always be misty

2). If you are so sure that Mrs. Hill was wrong, accusing Thomas, why wasn't she sent to jail or at least the FBI found proof that she wrongly accused Thomas? If you have no proof you can't accuse her.

You said: "There is zero proof she was telling the truth" ...............but there's also zero proof she was telling lies"

After all, she was called to testify under oath and since she's a Professor at Law it is extremely unlikely she was telling lies when she testified:

"Hill's testimony included a wide variety of language that she allegedly was subjected to by Thomas and that she found inappropriate:

He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as

women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess

....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

^[3]

from: http://en.wikipedia....mas_controversy

If I were you, I would be a little more careful accusing people. You could be wrong you know.

LaoPo