I was really interested to read THIS ARTICLE BY THOMAS SOWELL ABOUT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS.
Sowell is my favorite economist, and Thomas is my favorite justice. I mean, he totally ROCKS! He’s even better than Scalia. It’s too bad cloning is immoral (and takes too long, and doesn’t transfer memories), because I’d love to have a court packed with nine of him.
Here’s a neat piece in Sowell’s article that hits the nail on the head regarding how judicial activism amounts to the creation of ex post facto laws:
In one of his dissenting opinions, Justice Thomas declared that the Supreme Court was making "policy-laden judgments that we are ill equipped and arguably unauthorized to make" — and that this represented "functioning more as legislators than as judges."
He added: "The outcome of constitutional cases ought to rest on firmer ground than the personal preferences of judges."
That firmer ground is the original meaning of a law when it was passed. If that meaning needs to be changed, then it is up to elected officials to change it, not judges. That is what the democratic process is for.
When legislators change a law, that change is announced, so that everyone knows what is and is not illegal from now on. But when judges change the law by reinterpreting it, based on the "evolving standards" of a "living constitution," nobody knows that they have violated the law until after the fact, when it is too late.
Retrospective laws are expressly forbidden by the constitution. But the "evolving standards" of a "living constitution" amount to retrospective laws by another name.
Quite so.
Also, here’s a nice bit regarding whether Ten Commandments displays constitute an establishment of religion (which in the Constitution means creating an official state religion equivalent to the Church of England but which has been obscenely misinterpreted by the Supreme Court in recent years):
Justice Thomas has . . . refused to read the constitution’s ban on an "establishment of religion" as if it meant a "wall of separation" between church and state, requiring the obliteration of religious symbols from public property.
There is no such wall in the constitution, and an "establishment of religion" had a very plain and limited meaning when those words were written — a coerced support for a government-designated religion. Justice Thomas’ opinions often go back into history to show what the constitution’s original meaning was.
In response to someone who wanted the Ten Commandments removed from a courthouse, Justice Thomas said: "He need not stop to read it or even look at it, let alone express support for it or adopt the Commandments as guides for his life." There was "no coercion" as there was when there was an establishment of religion.
It certaintly gives me hope for our judicial system when I read articles like that, thanks Jimmy.
I recall that the Superfund statute was an ex post facto type law, requiring property owners to pay for chemical-spill cleanups where they had no responsibility whatsoever. In general, civil law does not prohibit ex post facto laws, unlike criminal law, where it is constitutionally prohibited. The extreme use of this kind of unjust civil law was a part of the revolution in the law back in the 1960s. The clergy sex-abuse crisis is being prosecuted under the same types of ex post facto laws.
Q: Why does justice Thomas never ask questions during supreme court hearings?
A: He has a reputation among the legal community as being unprepared, lazy and not too smart.
Strangely enough, Judge Thomas DOES ask questions during the hearings. However, if you compare the types of questions, some of the OTHER judges are asking questions that make it clear they weren’t paying attention during portions of the proceedings.
But Jimmy, does any of this really matter? The Catholic Church teaches that we can disobey the law whenever we don’t like it.
“A: He has a reputation among the legal community as being unprepared, lazy and not too smart.”
I think you mean “among the LIBERAL legal community”.
Sounds like a wish-fulfillment dream, to me.
Interesting that Justice Thomas’ detractor wouldn’t even sign his post with a pseudonym.
Tim J.
is it possible that you can write something here without using the “L” word?… again, this time capitalized.
… you and W… anytime there is something that you don’t agree with you throw in that “L” word.
I’m afraid I have to stand up for Scalia — Thomas is great, and his opinions are very lucid and easily understood. But Scalia is the lawyer’s lawyer, the originalist’s originalist. Thomas isn’t by any means an idiot, but Scalia’s a genius. Thomas produces good votes and performs good exegesis, but Scalia’s opinions are the better and more sophisticated case law.
“Q: Why does justice Thomas never ask questions during supreme court hearings?
A: He has a reputation among the legal community as being unprepared, lazy and not too smart.”
This is nonsense. I am a senior partner in a major national law firm that includes liberals and conservatives. In my experience the only lawyers who hold this view are liberals (yes Tim, that’s right) who do not practice before the Supreme Court and are simply biased by their politics. Unknowledgable conservatives do not have such a view because they have no motivation to do so. Knowledgable lawyers, liberal and conservative, are well-aware that Thomas is plenty smart and plenty industrious. To suggest otherwise just betrays abject ignorance on the matter.
“is it possible that you can write something here without using the “L” word?”
Liberal is a word. It has meaning. If you will tell me why I should not suspect that the anonymous poster holds politically liberal views, I will be happy to listen.
Liberals (leftists, neo-socialists, progressives, constitutional broad constructionists… call them whatever you like) have a vested interest in portraying Clarence Thomas as a trousered ape, because they don’t like what he has to say.
I’m sorry the word makes you uncomfortable, but that’s hardly my fault.
The thrust of this article is Thomas’s respect for the distinction between the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature. This is an important distinction and it is refreshing to see it recognized by a member of the Supreme Court. In an interesting bit of irony that I wrote about yesterday, The Washington Post opinion ended up on the wrong side of a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The paper published an editorial howling with indignation that the court had the audacity to legislate from the bench and pulled constitutional rights “out of thin air”. Funny I never heard that kind of talk when the Supreme court pulled a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion “out of thin air”.
Tim J.
It makes me uncomfortable because your usage of Liberal fits your own description of “liberals” … because you don’t like what
they have to say.
Leftists, neo-socialists and progressives are about as similar to each other as motor oil, cooking oil and baby oil but you just throw them all into the same category.
My objection is that LLLLLLL-i-b-u-h-r-r-a-w-l, Liberal, has become a loaded, dirty word.
You don’t seem to use it to mean “associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives… or broad minded: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms” (see A. Meriam-Webster for all of the definitions of “liberal”)
Mainly it makes me uncomfortable because I have spent my life trying to get out of the boxes people try to put me into… and I dislike it when people just throw around labels indiscriminately.
Personally, I am politically and socially liberal and theologically conservative.
I mean, when I say conservative, I could mean “conservative” or else mean something else.
Language is usage.
And where are your vested interests? I am sure it is to stay “right of center” but I am sure it is not to be neo-conservative to the point of supporting draconian policies. Am I correct?
For example, it would be wrong of me to assume that since you are conservative that you support the Bush admin. policy that has paid Halliburton to build private detention facilities to hold protesters and illegal immigrants “just in case” of emergency (or martial law being declared).
you don’t believe me?
**************************
2006 Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 24, 2006
KBR AWARDED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTINGENCY SUPPORT PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES
ARLINGTON, Virginia – KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL).
With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term, consisting of a one-year based period and four one-year options, the competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005.
“We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency operations support,” said Bruce Stanski, executive vice president, KBR Government and Infrastructure. “We look forward to continuing the good work we have been doing to support our customer whenever and wherever we are needed.”
The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.
The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.
ICE was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is comprised of four integrated divisions that form a 21st century law enforcement agency with broad responsibilities for a number of key homeland security priorities.
KBR is a global engineering, construction, technology and services company. Whether designing an LNG facility, serving as a defense industry contractor, or providing small capital construction, KBR delivers world-class service and performance. KBR employs more than 60,000 people in 43 countries around the world.
Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries. The company serves its customers with a broad range of products and services through its Energy Services Group and KBR. Visit the company’s World Wide Web site at http://www.halliburton.com. (click on news)
*******************************
If I say anything that doesn’t agree with “conservatives” then it is dismissed, and so am I, as “LIBERAL”.
I dislike it mainly because it signals the end of dialogue… all people do anymore is just monologue at each other. Listening is a lost art.
Did you ever notice that liberals get angry when they are called them “liberals”, but conservatives are proud to be called “conservatives”?
Tim,
Please read Da Rulz #3
3. Also because of the format restrictions, everyone must be concise. Don’t go on at length about things. Pasting large amounts of text into the combox also counts as going on at length. Going on at length constitutes rudeness.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
tim,
I’m not sure what it is you find so disturbing about planning in advance for an immigration emergency (basically, a large and rapid influx of refugees, from either a political crisis or natural disaster).
Is it that the contract has been awarded to Halliburton (which is the equivalent of the Boogey Man of liberalism)? The best and most thorough debunking of the “Evil Halliburton” meme I ever heard was on NPR. That’s National Public Radio.
Halliburton is a big government contractor. Period. That is the beginning and end of the story.
The contract about which you are so irrationally upset “provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S….
The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster.”
Are you saying it would be better NOT to plan for these things, considering the recent debacle at the Superdome?
Sorry, I didn’t see anything nefarious, or even interesting, in all that pasted text.
Liberal policies are often basically opposite, or a mirror image of conservative policies. Is that shocking? You said you are politically and socially liberal. That means that when we disagree on politics, it is likely to shake out along “liberal vs. conservative” lines.
I also find that often when people start to complain about being dismissed, or not being listened to, that they are really tired of people arguing with them.
Tim,
“broad minded: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms” (see A. Meriam-Webster for all of the definitions of “liberal”)
This is my favorite definition of
Liberal it pretty much matches yours. And yes it is a joke.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
People like Justice Thomas and Alan Keyes make Secularists (I too dislike the L-word) nervous because they are minorities who eloquently and intelligently pound their skewed beliefs into powder.
A few months ago, Alan Keyes was interviewed on CA radio. Man! He was fantastic! When he gave his talk on the origin of the separation of church and state in response to an Secularist-leaning caller, I was blown away.
And so was the caller.
He very concisely demonstrated how the modern interpretation was invented “out of whole cloth.” That man needs to run for president again. I would throw my whole life savings at his feet.
Me too, Stubblespark.
Alan Keyes is THE MAN.
To return to the topic, it is surprising to me some of the “judicial activism” which comes down the pipes. If the Constitution was historically understood to be the “evolving” and “living” document which some of the current justices believe it to be, riddle me this:
Why is there a 19th amendment? Why not “evolve” the right to vote from the 14th?
Answer: Because that’s not the way it’s supposed to work, and this country has known that for a very long time.
Words have meaning. When you start heading down the slippery slope of re-defining words whenever a majority of justices *feel* like the meaning should *evolve* to encompass things which aren’t clearly written, you lose the whole point of having a Constitution in the first place. We have a Constitution so that we know what to expect from our government, and a way to cry foul when they go too far. If we divorce the *actual* law from the *written* law, we become a “nation of men and not of laws”. Clearly, that was not the framers’ intent.
Enough of my rant. God Bless,
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn’t bother me. Shrug. I haven’t been up to anything. I haven’t gotten much done today.
America is the most communist nation of all.
Jimmy’s point is well taken. The “politically correct” myth is that the Supreme Court merely interprets the Constitution. Actually, the “Constitution” is nothing more than what five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court think that it ought to be, and they have changed their views over time. For example, depending on when they were asked:
(1) racial segregation is okay
(2) racial segregation is unconstitutional
(3) requiring payment of poll tax to vote is okay
(4) requiring payment of poll tax is wrong
(5) restricting voting to white people is okay
(6) restricting voting to white people is wrong
(7) state courts may admit illegally-seized evidence
(8) state courts must exclude illegal evidence
(9) prosecutors may comment on defendant’s silence
(10) prosecutors may not comment on defendant’s silence
It is possible to find a Supreme Court case that upholds EACH of these statements, and also one in which the court takes the opposite position. The relevant text of the Constitution never changed!
I submit that dictatorship and tyranny imposed by judges is no better than any other kind.
For those who are interested in learning the details, I would recommend a book by Robert E. Riggs, “Corrupted by Power,” which is available at http://www.amazon.com
business-opportunity busines