Is Clarence Thomas a waisted pick for the Supreme Court ( read all)?

Question

He never ask questions while seated on the bench. He never writes opinons and he have no original rulings he is predictable. He may as well stay at home because whatever the case is he will rule on the side of the conservatives so why do he even act like he could be impartial?

Answer 1

Yes, he is what my friends of color call, 'a white man's black man.' Not trying to be offensive but that is how it is put to me.

Basically, he was appointed based on his color and conservative views. Sometimes that happens but in his case, I'm not sure why he doesn't choose to get more involved. He is almost like a 'given/guaranteed' vote, ya know.

Pretty shameful if you ask me considering (oh geez drawing a mind blank) what was the name of that famous well spoken black supreme court justice? He was so awesome. I've even read some of his opinions on cases and he always had the inept ability to see things from a side that others had missed.

Answer 2

Why do you think that a conservative view precludes impartiality? Each justice has their own particular foundation beliefs, and it is from here that their individual opinions spring forth. Clarence Thomas is a good man that interprets the constitution strictly, looking for the intent of the authors as opposed to widening the scope of that which is stated. It never is a question of right or wrong, rather it is a question of how an issue is addressed in the constitution. When the constitution is wrong, we have the amendment process to correct the problem. The judiciary's place is to interpret the law, not to write new law, and , unfortunately, liberal interpretation of the law is pretty much the same thing as writing new law. I do not always find that the strict interpretation is the kindest or or most productive interpretation, but for the judiciary to to adopt a activist interpretation is an even greater evil. Justice Thomas serves the Constitution as it is written, and that is as it should be.

Answer 3

All of the Justices are "wasted picks." Not just Thomas, but Scalia, Souter, Breyer, etc. I think Anthony Kennedy is the worst of all. In my opinion, the last good Supreme Court died nearly 35 years ago: Hugo L. Black.

Although Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are brand new and haven't had much of chance, yet, to prove how they will behave, I don't have high hopes for them. I am expecting them to turn out just as bad as their predecessors.

Answer 4

J.Thomas has written opinions, and many of them are in the dissent. He seems to believe in a quite literal interpretation of the constitution. If it is not enumerated in he Constitution, Thomas will not create laws from whole cloth.

As far as the oral arguments go, Thomas has stated that the court members have already made up their minds after reading the briefs and the oral arguments are not going to change any minds.

Answer 5

You bet. He got the spot because while he is black on the outside, he is a white conservative on the inside. Bush wanted his "boy" to have the spot.
There were plenty of qualified black jurists out there, but we got Uncle Tom instead to replace Thurgood Marshall, who was a great man and a great jurist.

Answer 6

What are you talking about? Justice Thomas has written opinions. He's a valid addition to the court. You want Dave Chappell? What, are you racist?

Answer 7

I know what you're talking about, but he has written some opinions...he'll never be as good as Thurgood Marshall, as you could actually see the fruits of his labor...I'm just glad that he's a black man on the bench...so bro' I wouldn't complain!

Answer 8

You obviously don't know enough about the Supreme Court.

Answer 9

I think he is awesome, maybe you should ask him to sentence ya to being locked up or something ya think?

Answer 10

YES! YES! A thousand times..YES!