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

-

LaoPo

Much ado about nothing IMO, whether the allegations be true or false. I can only imagine it was a scandal created to deflect interest away from the fact he is an intellectual lightweight and unfit to be on the court for that reason. Lots of skullduggery in US Supreme Court nominations.

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

She's a law professor so she wouldn't lie under oath? Don't be so naive.

I can accuse her of lying all I want. She is a public figure. I can say all kinds of things about her if I so choose.

You should abandon this topic because it is obvious it is something that you just learned about yesterday.

She's a law professor so she wouldn't lie under oath? Don't be so naive.

I can accuse her of lying all I want. She is a public figure. I can say all kinds of things about her if I so choose.

You should abandon this topic because it is obvious it is something that you just learned about yesterday.

1. You show who and what you are...

2. I started this topic and I choose if I abandon it or not; not you.

LaoPo

Clarence Thomas was educated at Yale. I doubt if the dolt who is dissing him in the e-mail comments to an opinion piece can say the same.

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:

LaoPo

Mr. LP:

Please tell me you didn't actually write these words.

Wasn't Obama supposedly a Law Professor?

Clarence Thomas was educated at Yale. I doubt if the dolt who is dissing him in the e-mail comments to an opinion piece can say the same.

I think Thomas' body of opinions since being on the court justifies his being nominated. There was very little indication at the time of his nomination though that he had what it takes to do the job. He was very much a "black box". The way he's conducted himself since being on the court just adds fuel (unjustifiable IMO) to those that deride him. The record shows he's done the work (or maybe his clerks have). Supreme Court nominations are a tricky thing. I remeber the Robert Bork hearings. While I didn't particuarly like his approach to constitutional law there was no question he was an expert in the field and well qualified to be on the court. They bludgeoned him unmercifully. Politics.

Two posts removed. Please be civil. Posters have the right to express their opinion. You have the right to disagree. You don't have the right to deride them for their opinion.

Thanks.

What would be the effect if all justices chose to remain silent, like Thomas?

What would be the effect if all justices chose to remain silent, like Thomas?

Not much difference to be honest. Oral arguments befor the court are linited to 30 minutes per side and all the judges have reviewed the voluminous material that will have already been generated through the appeals process. It does leave a justice open to criticism however that they are not engaged, which may or may not be true.

What would be the effect if all justices chose to remain silent, like Thomas?

Not much difference to be honest. Oral arguments befor the court are linited to 30 minutes per side and all the judges have reviewed the voluminous material that will have already been generated through the appeals process. It does leave a justice open to criticism however that they are not engaged, which may or may not be true.

I had -more or less- the same question as Meadish_Sweetball but with the restriction if only 1, 2, 3 or 4 Justices would keep silent for longer periods.

I think that the "effect" amongst the people in the country would be that they would question WHY the Supreme Court Justices have no (further) questions whatsoever, never mind the fact that they have been informed already by means of written legal arguments.

That effect would be the same of course in any country in the world with a Supreme Court.

Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument

From the link below:

1. An attorney for each side of a case will have an opportunity to make a presentation to the Court and answer questions posed by the Justices. Prior to the argument each side has submitted a legal brief—a written legal argument outlining each party's points of law.

The Justices have read these briefs prior to argument and are thoroughly familiar with the case, its facts, and the legal positions that each party is advocating.

<snip>

2. Beginning the first Monday in October, the Court generally hears two one-hour arguments a day, at 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., with occasional afternoon sessions scheduled as necessary.

http://www.supremeco...alargument.aspx

It's difficult for any layman, including myself, to comprehend that a(ny) Justice would NOT have any additional question for 5 years...After all, an oral argument is always a little different than the written legal argument.

But, there's also a detailed PDF file with Rules of the Court with 83 pages, for anyone interested:

http://www.supremeco...softheCourt.pdf

LaoPo

Isn't this horse dead yet?

I'm not surprised if SC Justices don't have any further questions. The case goes through a very lengthy process to get to the Supreme Court in the first place. There are volumes and volumes written and said about the case by the time it gets to the Supreme Court. I wonder if there have ever been any "Wow, we never thought of that!" moments brought about by a question by a SCJ?

It's the longest thread I've seen about somebody who didn't say anything.

It's the longest thread I've seen about somebody who didn't say anything.

LaoPo