-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Doubting Thomas
The latest liberal campaign to discredit the most conservative Supreme Court justice.
The Supreme Court could decide how it will handle the health care reform lawsuits as early as November 10. Supporters of the law are busy filing amicus briefs, making legal arguments — and trying to disqualify justices likely to find President Obama’s signature legislation unconstitutional.
Liberals have disliked the idea of Clarence Thomas voting on the Supreme Court for 20 years now. The current drumbeat began in February when 73 House Democrats demanded the justice recuse himself from any case involving the health care law because of his wife’s work as a lobbyist and conservative activist. The ringleader of this effort was that ethical giant, then Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).
“As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the Democrats wrote in a letter. “We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.”
Evidently untroubled by Justice Elena Kagan’s work as solicitor general for the Obama administration, Weiner’s warriors continued, “Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”
Weiner is gone, but apparently not forgotten. This fall a group of 20 House Democrats excoriated Thomas for filing disclosure forms that failed to mention his wife’s tenure as a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Wags might be tempted to joke that this could actually bias Thomas in favor of the individual mandate, but the Democrats weren’t in a joking mood.
“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’ high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice,” they wrote, calling for “possible criminal or civil legal sanctions.”
Ginni Thomas’s affiliation with the Heritage Foundation wasn’t exactly a closely guarded state secret. Since the ties are clearly noted on the conservative think tank’s website and Mrs. Thomas’ Wikipedia page, it might be more reasonable to infer that the non-disclosure was an accident. As it turns out, 14 of the 20 Democrats calling for the justice’s head had to file amendments correcting errors and omissions in their own ethics reports.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) acknowledged in January 2009 that “due to a clerical oversight my previous financial disclosure statements inadvertently omitted information about my wife’s outside income.” Jackson’s filings had to be amended from 2004 to 2006. Rep. Earl Blumenthal (D-OR) neglected to disclose his wife’s income from 2006 through 2010. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a former chairman and current ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, made an error listing his wife’s assets in 2009 (her outside income seemingly included bribes from selling her votes as a member of the Detroit city council).
Nevertheless, calls for Thomas to recuse himself persist. But when a Pulitzer prize-winning political fact-checking website looked into the matter in March, most legal experts interviewed said there was no conflict of interest, in one case describing the charges as “entirely unmerited” and in another “completely wrong.”
“In fact,” the Cato Institute’s Trevor Burrrus told the website, “there is a better case to be made that upholding the law would give his wife more ‘business’ in the future when as-applied challenges are brought against Obamacare.” Even legal experts who favored Thomas’ recusal admitted it was unclear the law required it. Paul Campos of the University of Colorado Law School acknowledged, “It’s not a clear-cut case,” while Steven Lubet of Northwestern Law School allowed, “I think it is not correct to say that [Thomas] has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.”
For retired Justice John Paul Stevens, the longtime leader of the court’s liberal bloc, the question comes up regularly in interviews about his new book. “I would say that I wouldn’t think there’s any possibility that any of the activities of Mrs. Thomas have had any impact on the analysis of Judge Thomas,” Stevens said. “He has definite views; he’s been consistent over the years.”
Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, thinks those definite views help explain why Thomas has been targeted instead of other conservative justices. “He’s been the most consistent on the commerce clause,” Severino, who clerked for Thomas, says. “They know how he’s going to vote.” She notes that Thomas dissented in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that the commerce clause allowed Congress to criminalize the cultivation and use of home-grown marijuana, while Antonin Scalia voted with the majority.
Severino says that Thomas’ critics hope to “devalue his vote” in one of the most important Supreme Court cases of the young century. Clarence Thomas has now been frustrating their hopes for two decades.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/31/doubting-thomas
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Public Nuisances
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 10.31.11 @ 7:26AM
Thomas should not recuse himself but Kagan should be pushed harder by the Republican Leadershit to recuse herself. Its that simple.
Drudge Ette Obama| 10.31.11 @ 7:30AM
I agree. If Kagan refuses to recuse, then Chief Justice Roberts should prohibit her from participation in the deliberations. That's his job and he needs to execute his responsibilities. I hope that he has had that meeting with her.
Redstateboy| 10.31.11 @ 9:18AM
Ooooo.. wouldn't that make the Liber-uls howl?! Delicious!
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 11:32AM
He has no power to do so. Under Supreme Court and judicial ethics rules, the determination is left to the Justice in question. Indeed, the rule is that since Justices can't be replaced on a case, a Justice has an obligation NOT to recuse him or herself unless it is strictly required.
Neither Thomas nor Kagan should or will recuse themselves in this case.
Mike Hawk| 10.31.11 @ 11:42AM
If anyone should recuse themselves it should be Kagan. She was intimately involved with case as WH cousel prior to being placed on the court. (She should not be on the court to begin with, but that is another thing.)
George S| 10.31.11 @ 1:06PM
In Kagan's case, it is required. The Code of Conduct for US Judges requires a judge to disqualify herself if she served as a lawyer in the matter that is being disputed. Since Kagan was Solicitor General, she represented the federal government (Obama) and was, de facto a party in the litigation. A no brainer.
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 2:01PM
Her testimony before Congress on her non-involvement with the health care reform act was detailed and explicit, and has not been refuted. She did not represent the Government. The Solicitor General is the government's lawyer before the Supreme Court, not the lower courts. That's the US Attorneys' job.
Recusal is not only not required, it would be improper for Justice Kagan to recuse herself since it is not required.
George S| 10.31.11 @ 3:59PM
She was the president's (office) attorney for matters before SCOTUS. To say she was not involved is as believable as Holder's assertion under oath that he knew nothing of Fast and Furious. Kagan can artfully state an unequivocal "No" when asked if she had anything to do with the PPACA but not when it comes to her office or underlings. To say she was unaware is stretching things too far -- her silence in response to the strategies from others indicates that they are on the right track. She never said anything about opinions on the commerce clause or the power of taxation as a penalty. She may not have had a hand in the writing of the law, but someone did. Question is: did they act independently of the Solicitor General? Hardly. Even if they did, Kagan is still responsible for the work product.
Kagan's opinions were cemented prior to her being nominated to the Court. Even if she knew she was next in line, and that was the reason to go paper silent -- that, too, is unethical. She was the presidents attorney and now she is being asked to rule on her office's advice.
The bottom line is that a citizen should not go before a court where the judge has already formed an opinion. Especially an opinion against the citizen's argument.
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 4:26PM
You're just wrong on the legal ethics issue. Dead wrong. Do you think Justice Thomas or Roberts had not formed opinions on the constitutionality of abortion before being appointed. Of course they did. Judges are all human beings with opinions. The issue is whether they have disqualifying involvement with the specific case before the court. Kagan's testimony was quite clear on that issue. If you have some evidence to contradict that testimony, provide it. Otherwise, your desire to have another vote in your favor on an issue isn't sufficient to cause a disqualification.
George S| 10.31.11 @ 5:08PM
RCV... ethics are not rooted in facts or law, they are about appearances. A judge cannot appear to be biased, which is why the statue wears a blindfold holding a scale. It is always referred to as an appearance of impropriety, not provable instances or acts.
As far as abortion, of course everyone has an opinion or view on whether it is constitutional -- but every nominee answers the question by refusing to answer the question. Appearances. But if a nominee had written an extensive thesis on how to defeat Roe with new or novel arguments, then that would broadcast to everyone on how to argue the case before that nominee, thereby making that nominee unsuitable for the Court. Or at least that's how it would appear.
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 6:06PM
First of all, the "appearance" rules are different for Supreme Court Justices, precisely for the reason that they can't be replaced. They are to disqualify themselves only when required to do so under conflict of interest rules. Kagan's disqualification is clearly not required for the reasons I stated. A good example of why the "appearance" rule would make no sense is the issue of Clarence Thomas and his wife's involvement in actively opposing the Health Care Reform Act. If the "appearance" standard applied, it might well call for his disqualification in light of his wife's active political involvement on the issue.
But neither Kagan nor Thomas is required to, or should, recuse themselves on this issue. They have no actual legal conflicts, and their unnecessary recusal would leave the Court short.
I can guarantee you that the full Court will hear these challenges to the Health Care law. I can also guarantee you that many will be surprised at how various justices vote. The conventional wisdom is that Kennedy will be the swing vote. But, in reality, the key vote may well lie with Antonin Scalia, whose votes in the Marijuana cases evidence a firm stare decisis acquiescence in the broad scope of Congress's commerce clause powers. We shall see, and it will certainly be very close.
ImissBuckley31| 10.31.11 @ 6:48PM
While I was disappointed with Scalia's vote in the Raich case, I don't think his vote in that case indicates support for the Individual mandate in Obamacare. Simply, because with the exception of the more libertarian-minded conservative jurists, most conservative jurists including Scalia have long supported the continued criminalization of pot. There is also a distinction between the activity of growing pot on one's own property, and the activity of simply existing. If I'm right about Scalia, then I expect to make this distinction. But who knows he might surprise me, (God I hope not).
W| 10.31.11 @ 6:53PM
I agree with your analysis of whether they should recuse. They should not.
Purple Lips| 10.31.11 @ 9:58AM
Yeah, right. Can you picture Senator Lugar (R) IN, doing that? He practically had an orgasm (aided by a large does of Viagra, of course) when Obama announced Kagan's nomination. And when the Senate voted for Sotomeyer, he rushed from the Senate chambers in order to let the world know he was the first senator to vote in her favor.
No, there will be no help from that trusty group of RINOs in the Senate.
Mike Hawk| 10.31.11 @ 11:43AM
Lugar will soon be history, thogh not soon enough.
Louis Jenkins| 10.31.11 @ 8:56AM
I doubt that Roberts has had the meeting with Kagan. Conservatives, judges and politicans, are always slow on the uptake. If Kagan were to recuse herself, I would be comfortable with Thomas doing the same. But will she? No. Therefore Thomas should not. Let the arguments begin.
Mike Hawk| 10.31.11 @ 11:44AM
There is no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse himself.
Ground Control| 10.31.11 @ 9:02AM
Let's face it, neither Kagan nor Sotomayor should even BE on the Court. They are ideologues, not justices. They look at desired outcomes instead of the Law. They were appointed solely because they would be reliable Leftist votes on the Court, and not for any actual judicial temperament they may have.
Redstateboy| 10.31.11 @ 9:19AM
Kagan solicited the Court on behalf of HusseinCare... how could she not recuse herself?
john dubose| 10.31.11 @ 9:28AM
One would need a lot of real facts to know whether any or none of these three should recuse themselves. Those facts are ( sadly ) not in this article.
oldfart| 10.31.11 @ 9:40AM
Of course they are attacking Justice Thomas. He has been thinking for himself. TSK TSK TSK.
POST American| 10.31.11 @ 9:56AM
-------'90's Show' RE--ASS--SURE--ANTS OP------
-------------------------ALERT!----------------------------
And BTW ---any time you're ready,
as FUKISHIMA goes into its 9th month
of Globalist media depop op
---------------------BLACK OUT------------------------
Dixie Pixie| 10.31.11 @ 10:57AM
Post American....Obama and his minions did not find Dick Cheney's Magical Earthquake and Hurricane controlling machine.
Nor did they use such a non-existence machine.
It only existed in the minds of his more demented followers.
For crying out loud.
The Japanese Fukushima earthquake was a natural event long anticipated and planned for.
The Japanese have long known their islands are earthquake prone and disasters frequent.
It is certainly not part of a MSM depopulation campaign.
Give it up and start considering the real and obvious conspiracies reported on every day.
Moe Blotz| 10.31.11 @ 1:46PM
By his own admission, Post American is huffing a substance that affects his sensibilities. I refer you to our exchange on 22 October 10.18 AM under China's Cyber Warfare;TAS
squalis| 10.31.11 @ 10:10AM
It pleases me to wonder if maybe, just maybe, Justice Thomas is having a little bit of fun over some payback for the nomination process he went through.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 10:18AM
Thank the LORD (that would be actually, God, Jesus AND the Holy Spirit for you Papists), for Clarence Thomas!
Tim the Enchanter| 10.31.11 @ 10:52AM
You're not a Christian, not a follower of Jesus Christ. You worship a book, instead.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 11:58AM
Who are YOU to tell me?
Jesus is the Word of God. It is written that the Scripture cannot be broken. He is the WORD become flesh. Do you worship Him?
Or do you also buy into the lie that the Pope is Christ's "Vicar" on Earth?
Huh, liar?
Jesus says this about Himself: " ..the Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life.: Jn. 6:63.
If you aren't believing the Scriptures themselves, you're believing false doctrine.
You can't play games with God, punk.
Lagarto Rey| 10.31.11 @ 1:34PM
But Tim, you forget, Margie speaks "God-ese". She may worship the Bible but seems insufferably incapable of internalizing its most fundamental direction to, prostrate oneself before God, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 1:46PM
So today the TROLL with many monikers is going by "Lagarto Rey".
LOL.
Repent and believe the Gospel of God.
Beginning with Mk. 1:1.
And you'd better HOPE that God won't leave ou alone.. in a good way.
Repent, liar.
jd| 10.31.11 @ 4:08PM
Margie,
There you go again, calling everybody LIAR.
You seem to think that everybody who points out your hate is one person using different names. Honey, I would venture to say that the majority of people on this site not only realize how un-Christian you truly are, but have lost all respect for you as a blogger on this site.
You really are a miserable person, aren't you? Too bad with all the reading of the Bible that you seem to do you that you cannot comprehend the meaning of spiritualness, grace, and goodness in living one's life.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 5:29PM
jd: When someone blatantly lies, it's what I call them.
Take your sour little self for example, you little twerp.
Repent idolator.
Jesus Christ is LORD.
MBD| 10.31.11 @ 11:11AM
Now Margie, you realize that Justice Thomas and his wife are devout 'Papists', don't you?
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 12:00PM
A Papist is anyone who rejects the WORD of GOD with the false teachings of Catholicism.
Dan| 10.31.11 @ 12:25PM
BIGOT ALERT!!! BIGOT ALERT!!!!
The Mad Mullah, Margie the Bigot or Pigot, is here.
Of course, everyone now knows Margie doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, and therefore she is not a true Christian. She has created her own cult, of which she is the Mullah and only member. But she will lecture everyone on how to be a Christian, and if you disagree with her, then expect : punk, liar, papist, repent, burn in hell.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 12:50PM
REPENT LIAR:
Repent and believe the Gospel of God, beginning with Mk. 1:1.
Your Catholic "Deity of the Bible. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and in Him is the fulness of the GodHead.
"For in Him the whole fulness of Deity dwells Bodily. " Col. 2:9.
That does NOT include "Mary as Mother of God!"
"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and My Servant Whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after meat you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me." Is. 43:10.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 12:51PM
Amend: Your Catholic "Deity" is not the same Deity of the Bible." It includes "Mary" as "Mother of God."
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 2:04PM
The "Catholic deity" most certainly does not include Mary in any capacity.
victor| 10.31.11 @ 2:43PM
You might want to read this:
http://www.dioceseoftyler.org/.....ROFGOD.pdf
victor| 10.31.11 @ 2:46PM
or this:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM
975 "We believe that the **Holy Mother of God**, the new Eve, **Mother of the Church**, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG # 15).
Christopher| 10.31.11 @ 2:55PM
That does not mean Mary is God, or the Deity.
victor| 10.31.11 @ 3:35PM
Christopher:
"That does not mean Mary is God"
So, if you say that Mary is Mother of God, as the Cathecism states, then you don't mean it, "Christopher"?
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 4:30PM
Victor, there's nothing magic about the formulation. Christians acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God. Mary was his mother. Obviously God existed before Mary gave birth to Jesus the Man. "Mother of God" is merely shorthand for the Mother of Jesus Christ, who is God, of one being with the Father.
I realize that for you and Margie who, unlike virtually all Christians, don't acknowledge that Jesus is God, this doesn't make sense, but for Christians, it does.
Christopher| 10.31.11 @ 4:30PM
The question was whether Mary is God, that is what Deity means. She is not God..Don't try to confuse the issue.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus. "The Eternal Word took on flesh and became one of us through the cooperation of Mary, and thus she became the Mother of God."
You don't accept it because you do not, from what I read yesterday and today, accept the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus is God, the Mary is given the title of Mother of Jesus, or God.
"Thetokos" is a Greek title for Mary that the early Church selected to explain the mystery of how God is with us in Jesus Christ. As Jesus is God and Man and Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to the person who combines the human nature and divine nature in one person.
Of course, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God then you won't accept the title Mother of God. It is your choice.
I assume vic and margie are the same nature here?
Dan| 10.31.11 @ 4:33PM
Christopher,
You are too logical for vic/margie.
Lee Ghume| 10.31.11 @ 1:50PM
If you are really bad in Margie's eyes, you are a TROLL. She must be a practicing Christian, because she does not yet have it right.
jan| 10.31.11 @ 4:12PM
Dan,
You described Margie to the letter! She is no Christian. Nothing but a Catholic basher who has some very deep-seated issues that need to be resolved.
Dan| 10.31.11 @ 4:34PM
jan, it is a daily chore to reply to her bigotry but I will continue to do it as long as she posts her bigotry. We can't let it go withot reply. Thanks.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 5:31PM
Oo the Catholic hating Trolls are out in full force!
Repent idolators:
JESUS Christ is LORD.
Read the Bible and repent and believe the Gospel of God.
And His Gospel doesn't include Mary as the "Mother of God."
You've been had.
RCV| 10.31.11 @ 6:15PM
"And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you [Mary] among women, and blessed is fruit of your womb.'
... And Mary said, ... Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed." Luke 1:41-48.
Mary is blessed, among all women. And there is nothing unbiblical about admiring her as so.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.1.11 @ 3:29AM
I don't bother with silly idiotic sanctimonious hypocrisy when selectively picking and choosing, idiotically, which scriptures I believe on idiotically claiming, ad nauseum, homosexuality is not a sin, despite Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable", while readers ponder my idiotic sanctimonious hypocritical position on the next verse Leviticus 18:23 "Do not have sexual relations with an animal", not to mention Leviticus 18:6 "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations", on where I stand on these, all while idiotically sanctimoniously hypocritically boasting, ad nauseum, of being a lifelong biblical expert and devout churchgoing expert on real Christian love and compassion, not to mention idiotically sanctimoniously hypocritically boasting, ad nauseum, of being a lifelong constitutional expert and belonging to a political party that at least cares about human beings AFTER they're born, on readers pondering why I believe Elizabeth's words, but not Paul's words, or even all of Christ's words, on these being but just a few of my idiotic sanctimonious hypocrisy matters.
RCV| 11.1.11 @ 11:21AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.1.11 @ 12:08PM
I don't bother with silly beastiality, and silly incest, biblical verses adjacent to silly 'sinless' homosexuality, when sanctimoniously espousing hypocritical views of idiocy, idiocy of such magnitude no reader with a modicum of intelligence and honesty can possibly fail to notice, as but just one example from among a number that is legion, on me being just another liberal troll idiot, albeit more obnoxious an idiot than most, since I am a lifelong scholar of both the Constitution and the Bible, and an expert of both real Christian love and compassion, supporting abortion, even AFTER they're born, as I provide even more sanctimonious hypocrisy on scripture, like the idiot I constantly reveal myself to be, matters.
RCV| 11.1.11 @ 1:11PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzz...zzz....z
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.1.11 @ 3:37PM
I don't bother with silly reader ponderings on whether posting the letter 'z' approximately as many times as dollars that the dithering idiot liar in chief of downgrade and really pathetic and despicable speeches, who I support now, as well as from the beginning, has put the nation into debt, is more intellectually and honestly considered reason and experience, or considered emotional prattle, not to mention me being the epitome of an obnoxious idiot liberal troll who constantly posts sanctimonious hypocrisy as a lifelong scholar of both the Constitution and the Bible, which should no doubt be prefaced with every utterance I espouse, such as on the constitutionality of mandatory national health care as well as which biblical scripture to heed or not, matters.
RCV| 11.1.11 @ 4:41PM
Man up, Skip.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.1.11 @ 6:26PM
I don't bother with silly reader ponderings on my rebuttal more than hinting that I tend toward pretending to lofty rationalities, as a veneer to cover fiercely resentful passions, which leak out, endlessly, in the form of crazed projections revelatory of ignorance, and of arrogance, and of a dogged stupidity, on all this and more being revealed with three whole words in this instance, and not just one letter, repeated endlessly, much like all my endless obnoxious idiotic sanctimonious hypocrisy, endlessly, mindful of, for instance, a dog that returns to his vomit, matters.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 12:01PM
*insert "and replaces them with."
Kingofthenet| 10.31.11 @ 12:11PM
Where are the White Women at?
W| 10.31.11 @ 12:20PM
King, that was Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles.
John Navratil| 10.31.11 @ 12:45PM
W,
Don't move or the rock at Perry's ranch gets it!
W| 10.31.11 @ 1:10PM
John,
Great movie. Great cast. Real satire.
Mike 3/505| 10.31.11 @ 7:06PM
Do what he say! Do what he say!
Lagarto Rey| 10.31.11 @ 1:52PM
Excellent point, MBD. Of course, JFK was a "Papist", but we know what came of him. Does however seem a mite inconsistent that we now have Margie on record advocating for a Papist, SC Justice.
jan| 10.31.11 @ 4:15PM
Mullah Margie a hypocrite? That's a first.
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 5:36PM
Not my fault that the Papacy is rife with child molesters and hypocrites and Adulterers, not to mention murderers of Christians for six centuries.
It isn't surprising that those who follow a cult leader (the Pope) and reject the Scriptures would be made of the same stuff, hmm?
Ahh, but they're always somehow justified by their cult followers.
And yet... yet, the Word of God is the Judge:
"Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done." Rev. 22:11 & 12.
You see, there's this thing... called Judgment Day.
Praise God!
Al Adab| 10.31.11 @ 11:16AM
Simply put gang, the racist Left cannot abide Conservatives who happen to be black. Ask Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell how the Left treats them. Ask Hermann Cain. You see, to The Left blacks must be kept dependant upon government largess thereby securing the votes of those citizens. The Left uses divide and conquer tactics to their own advantage. They treat people as members of groups or collectives not as the individuals they are.
PolishKnight| 11.1.11 @ 9:43AM
Al Adab, it's worse then that: They cannot abide conservatives at all. Even the moderate McCain was thrown under the bus the moment it suited them. I've been to parties with them and heard them expressed their views and politely expressed mine and then they quietly blackballed me.
This is why I like to provide a dissenting view here sometimes. We can examine our beliefs and evolve them, they cannot. On the contrary, their ideology has devolved into a simple goal to see more government power for their party at all costs with little concern for their original goals.
Keep in mind that they've defined conservatism as racist while promised benefits to non-whites. This paradigm is winning them a lot of votes but it's also a monstrous paradox. In addition, conservatives really haven't called them on it enough. Without race and gender entitlements, what do the Democrats really have to sell the general public? Not a lot, really. So they guard that henhouse pretty diligently and the Republicans go along.
We need to keep going with the direction that proposition 209 started: create state laws ending racial and gender discrimination in hiring, period (not just government jobs.)
Kingofthenet| 10.31.11 @ 11:37AM
What is the over/under for Thomas to FINALLY ask a question on the bench? He can start with what time is lunch?
W| 10.31.11 @ 12:27PM
King, have you argued before the Supreme Court, or do you attend the arguments?
Riff Raff| 10.31.11 @ 12:33PM
Kingofthenet couldn't win an argument with a 7-Eleven clerk over the price of cigarettes.
Soljerblue| 11.1.11 @ 9:49PM
Perhaps Thomas subscribes to the historic truth that it's better to close your mouth and be thought a fool, then -- like you -- to open it and remove all doubt.
Just sayin'
Bill| 10.31.11 @ 1:08PM
Let's see, what's the liberal approach in matters involving black authorities? Oh yeah, it's racism to want him not to take part in this particular decision.
obadiah| 10.31.11 @ 1:48PM
Thomas is blatantly corrupt. Kagan is blatantly corrupt. They have all stopped caring whether they are blatantly corrupt.
ManssasGrandma| 10.31.11 @ 7:01PM
Kagan is an idealogue, but I don't think either of them is corrupt. What is your reasoning on this?
Akaky| 10.31.11 @ 2:20PM
Have to agree to Al Adab: If you're a black man who thinks for yourself, you must be destroyed, lest you infect others with your independence. And Margie, this is what Catholics believe about Jesus:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. "
Margie| 10.31.11 @ 5:38PM
I know full well what Catholics believe.
See the above quotation from the vatican, above.
Worshipping Mary as the "Mother of God" is BLASPHEMY.
Repent!
Christopher| 10.31.11 @ 7:01PM
Margie, Catholics do not worship Mary.
Nick| 11.1.11 @ 1:16AM
Margie,
If you knew what the Catholic Church actually taught, I wouldn't constantly have to correct you, now would I?
God Bless!
p.s. I've explained Theotokos and Vicar of Christ to you, several times.
hardcard| 10.31.11 @ 3:56PM
margie is off her meds again. also lay off the vodka.
jane | 10.31.11 @ 4:23PM
Thomas knows how to take a punch and come back for more.
Nite| 10.31.11 @ 10:44PM
This is nothing more that the Liberals want to knock out a conservative vote, while leaving the Obama appointees able to vote on obamacare. The vote will likely be close. Kagin , should recuse herself because of her work on obamacare, but she won't. Liberals are determined that this horrible law will stay in effect.
Soljerblue| 11.1.11 @ 9:46PM
Thomas scares the bejeebers out of the Left/Libs. Thank God for Clarence Thomas!