WSJ and Justice Thomas

Doug:

I only read a few opinions a year, but I can’t think of any decisions I’ve seen them disagree on, much less any opinions explaining the difference. Do you have any examples?

When he disagrees with Scalia? You mean, like when it snows in August? You must be kidding. The mute Mr. Thomas has not improved with age, except for the increasing frequency of shining “Mr. Charlie” Scalia’s shoes.

Boy, Bubba,

This document has a cross tab of the frequency of disagreement between justices. I do not endorse any conclusion, but in the raw data, you’ll notice that Thomas and Scalia disagree 6.6% of the time. About 150 certiorari petitions are granted a year, so that means 9 disagreements a year.

Those cases are generally interesting. Later, I will write a disertation about these cases, but from general recollection I do not ever recall siding with Scalia.

Before you criticize Thomas and Scalia for voting alike quite often, you liberals out there should look at Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer’s numbers.

And finally, to boyreporter alone…

The mute Mr. Thomas has not improved with age, except for the increasing frequency of shining “Mr. Charlie” Scalia’s shoes.

Why not take your racist nonsense elsewhere?

Clarence Thomas accepted affirmative action all through school and then turned on the concept. He’s a hypocrite, at least. Uncle Tom? No, just a selfish fool.

boy,

Dougie — why don’t I take my racist nonsense elsewhere? ‘Cause this is where the nonsensical racists are.

And you fill in the role of Grand Dragon quite well.

“Clarence Thomas accepted affirmative action all through school and then turned on the concept.”

At some point the concept needs to be “turned on” as it’s not supposed to go on forever. It was needed back when Thomas was coming up.

“At some point the concept needs to be “turned on” as it’s not supposed to go on forever. It was needed back when Thomas was coming up.”

That is such a relief. At last, a level playing field. Whew! ‘Bout time, huh?

Such confident, dismissive declarations about a complicated subject, obviously from someone without an effing clue.

At least, my comment was meant as an insult to a crappy guy foisted on us by W Sr. (Is there no end to what that family can do TO this country?) It was not meant to edify with serious comment the on-going posts about how wonderful Mr. Mute is. I hope Scalia tips well. Racism:?How about your condescending tone regarding a man so ill-qualified and so obviously NOT the best man W Sr could have chosen…not even close…that there really is no wonder that he hasn’t been able to form a question to anyone appearing before the Court in all these years. Your intense fawning would be out of place even for a family pet. Why are you trying so hard? To convince yourself, possibly?

Julio, you are all over the map, bro. Ain’t nothin’ racist ’bout sayin’ a dude ain’t got nothin’ when he ain’t, ah-ight.

You need Clarence because he’s a black man you are comfy with. He does the white man’s bidding, and that makes him “independent.” Transparency, thou are Julio.