|
Post by hchoops on Aug 2, 2018 12:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 2, 2018 12:31:42 GMT -5
No offense but this isn't some objective reading of the full factual record with a thin slice opinion. It's an ideological hit job designed to put Thomas in the worst light. She's never liked Thomas and like everyone else at the NYT remains just giddy over RBG. That said, thank you for posting. I do like reading such pieces nevertheless. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 2, 2018 12:50:23 GMT -5
We won't be able to discuss this without getting into a political discussion so I will leave it at this: Nothing in Ms. Greenhouse's article appears to be facially incorrect. Her analysis of the Justice's opinions cites language which makes her point, i.e that he thinks the court has strayed from its job for a hundred years or more. She has a thesis and offers support for it. It does not have the depth or breadth of a law review article because it is not one. It a piece written for popular consumption. I am not sure that Justice Thomas, who certainly fancies himself as a man of the people and not a judicial snob, would disagree with much that she has said about his writings.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Aug 2, 2018 16:24:18 GMT -5
I don't care if this gets deleted -- Clarence Thomas is a stain on Holy Cross's reputation.
|
|
|
Post by sader98 on Aug 3, 2018 21:01:25 GMT -5
Dean W - He has stated that he doesn’t care if this gets deleted...Can you please oblige him?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Aug 3, 2018 21:42:04 GMT -5
Dean W - He has stated that he doesn’t care if this gets deleted...Can you please oblige him? Yeah, you shouldn't have to hear about how someone with multiple sexual harassment claims against him can be an embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 4, 2018 8:20:54 GMT -5
The topic of Supreme Court justices should be above politics. They are, after all, supposed to be objective and arbiters of the law which should be nonpartisan. However, that has probably always been an ideal that was never quite lived up to but has become almost a joke over the last 40+/- years, especially in the last 10 years, even more so the last 3 years. Justice Thomas has been a lightning rod since his confirmation hearings and that is not going to go away any time soon regardless of your political perspective.
|
|
|
Post by sader98 on Aug 4, 2018 8:41:27 GMT -5
Lightning rod and reputation stain seem like different characterizations
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 4, 2018 8:56:11 GMT -5
Agree. Regardless of political affiliation, would you not agree that Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings (vis-a-vis Anita Hill) would be held in a radically different way if it was him instead of Kavanaugh coming up soon?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 4, 2018 9:25:58 GMT -5
I don’t think so. The opposition will vilify every such nominee with no regard for the truth or for common decency.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Aug 4, 2018 9:29:13 GMT -5
But at least he will get a hearing unlike the original opening
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Aug 4, 2018 10:26:03 GMT -5
There is zero chance that Thomas would be confirmed today regardless of partisanship, because thankfully we're living in a world where the disgusting victim-shaming and victim-blaming that was perpetrated against Anita Hill is much less acceptable than it was in the early 90s.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 4, 2018 10:54:10 GMT -5
My point was that while both Thomas and Kavanaugh are conservative, the former was accused of sexual misconduct and the latter has not been. I am not talking politics - theirs or anyone else's - I am speaking about how Thomas and Hill were both treated. Whether he was innocent of any wrongdoing or not years ago, today I think he would have a much more difficult time to be confirmed. If he felt he was given a tough time then, that's nothing to what he would have had to endure today as allegations of sexual misconduct is "bi-partisan" and not tolerated. At minimum, IMHO, his confirmation would drag on for many months as Hill's allegations would be vetted in much more detail than decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 4, 2018 10:59:52 GMT -5
It seems at times that it is the accusation that is no longer tolerated. Whether or not the accused was guilty of any actual misconduct no longer seems to matter. There is an accusation and a career is over in far too many cases.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Aug 4, 2018 12:37:15 GMT -5
Whether or not the accused was guilty of any actual misconduct no longer seems to matter. I'm not aware of cases like this, at least in the high profile cases that have been publicized recently
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 4, 2018 13:56:05 GMT -5
Look at the case of Senator Menendez and the millions he received in gifts, his censure by his Senate colleagues (from both sides of the aisle) and his current run for another seat. Then check out those who have resigned or declined to run for reelection when a charge appeared against them. On both sides, whether something was done or not seems to be of little consequence.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Aug 9, 2018 10:20:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Aug 9, 2018 14:10:56 GMT -5
Yeah, when it says "the left's freakout" in the url and the first sentence of the article, that's not going to be appropriate for discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 9, 2018 16:54:47 GMT -5
I thought Stephen Hayward was just a climate change denier. Who knew he was an authority on constitutional interpretation, too?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 6, 2018 12:23:02 GMT -5
This thread started with a Linda Greenhouse article. She has another one today in light of the death of President Bush. It compares his two SCOTUS nominations, Justices Souter and Thomas. It notes that the Souter nomination, supported by his New Hampshire friend, Warren Rudman, was an easy one. The president wasn't particularly interested in the Court so he just nominated a guy who would be confirmed. When Justice Marshall left the court, Bush felt obligated to appoint an African American justice, and our alumnus was waiting in the wings. As Ms. Greenhouse points out, there was plenty of opposition before the Anita Hill thing started. This time Bush had a fight, but he was able to win it. Oh, and the article contains another interesting note. President Trump has nominated 10 former Thomas clerks to the federal bench. His chambers are clearly the breeding ground for modern conservative legal thought. www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/bush-supreme-court-thomas.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
|
|