Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, the strategy worked so well with Clarence Thomas. Everyone* thought him a more than capable replacement for Thurgood Marshall.


BTW, SAM, the rub on JRB is that she thought Lochner was correctly decided, and that West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was wrong to overrule it (or that case, along with others).



*other than the 48 senators voting against.

I do not know the history of JRB or the context in which she said these things, but I have a certain respect for a conservative who is willing to stand up for Lochner.

After all, the constitution specifically says that "No state... shall pass any ... law impairing the Obligation of Contract", and that seems to be an individual right that is specifically protected. That must mean something.

While in my personal view the balancing of rights would favor protective legislation in cases like Lochner, I do think some weight should be given to the counterbalancing right, and it is just a question of how much.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, the strategy worked so well with Clarence Thomas.

Good point. Now there's a name for the "where are they now" files. I'll try to google him and see what I come up with.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Good point. Now there's a name for the "where are they now" files. I'll try to google him and see what I come up with.

I do not believe he is doing much these days. He found a cushy job where he can kick back and avoid serious thought, and let others do the heavy lifting.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
I do not know the history of JRB or the context in which she said these things, but I have a certain respect for a conservative who is willing to stand up for Lochner.

After all, the constitution specifically says that "No state... shall pass any ... law impairing the Obligation of Contract", and that seems to be an individual right that is specifically protected. That must mean something.

While in my personal view the balancing of rights would favor protective legislation in cases like Lochner, I do think some weight should be given to the counterbalancing right, and it is just a question of how much.

I don't think the Contracts clause gets you much of anywhere for substantive due process. That's focused on ex post changes to teh terms of contracts, not ex ante limitations upon them.

Now, the privileges and immunities clause both in Art. IV and the 14th amendment should get your somewhere, but, since slaughterhouse and Parrish, don't.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Good point. Now there's a name for the "where are they now" files. I'll try to google him and see what I come up with.

If you think neither the Court, Thomas, Bush 41, or the Senate was not damaged by that, you are not paying attention.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Captain
I do not believe he is doing much these days. He found a cushy job where he can kick back and avoid serious thought, and let others do the heavy lifting.

If he were a liberal, you would be accused of being a racist.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If he were a liberal, you would be accused of being a racist.

I'll let you and the Captain sort that out, but his original comment did remind me of a separate point.

I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'll let you and the Captain sort that out, but his original comment did remind me of a separate point.

I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

On (a), it's not inexplicable. I recall he explained that 1) he's never been much of an oralist and 2) he personally gets more from reading the briefs than asking tendentious questions.

on (b), I think some study showed he actually has voted more frequently with Rehnquist of late than Scalia

on (c) Yes, although I can't cite one, his opinions have not been universally derided, but sometimes have been good.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If he were a liberal, you would be accused of being a racist.

BTW, how about William Bennett?

• "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, . . . [although that is] an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'll let you and the Captain sort that out, but his original comment did remind me of a separate point.

I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

Yes. He is also known to sit in the Mall, dressed incognito as a tourist, across from girls sunning themselves, and stroke himself subtly underneath a newspaper. Secret service have found him there numerous times, most famously when he was dragged into an oral argument on Nebraska’s partial birth abortion statute in a golf visor and wraparound shades, moaning audibly and swaggering through the aisles to the panel bench with an intimidating erection poking his robe forward.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'll let you and the Captain sort that out, but his original comment did remind me of a separate point.

I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

I think those impressions are the racist impressions that have become conventional wisdom (I'm not attributing them to you). In other words, most people that criticize him have not read his opinions.

Remaining silent means during orals means nothing to me. Really, is anyone's mind changed during oral arguments? Or is it just an opportunity for the judges to (a) show how smart they are or (b) get their kicks?

As for voting in Scalia's shadow, don't the conservative on the court typically vote together? And the liberals as well? Didn't Renquist and Scalia vote together in most cases? Why wasn't Scalia characterized as voting in Bill's shadow or vice versa?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, how about William Bennett?

• "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, . . . [although that is] an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

I hadn't seen that.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

(a) and (b) are common knowledge.

As for (c), wouldn't that depend on who's clerking for him in that particular term?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you think neither the Court, Thomas, Bush 41, or the Senate was not damaged by that, you are not paying attention.

The damage was caused by Kennedy, Biden and assorted other dimwits when they first Borked. Thomas was just an effect of that cause.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I hadn't seen that.

You're kidding, right?