UPDATE!! I just listened to a lawyer who described attending the Supreme Court

[mfcorey1]

Last edited Sun Nov 2, 2014, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

sessions where the lawyers were talking about voting rights, and she said that Clarence Thomas turned his back to the lawyers while they presented their arguments. What a piece of work!


UPDATE: Many have said this is not true. The attorney making the statement was Davida Mathis on the WAOK 1380 talk show in Atlanta. The program is called Sisters In Law and is hosted by two attorneys who are sisters. She made the statement on her show November 1, 2014.

[rhett o rick]

1. k&r. Thanks for posting. nm

[malaise]

2. Wasn't Uncle Tom put there token by GHW to do his bidding

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

What an insult to the memory of the man he replaced - Thurgood Marshall

[RedSpartan]

4. He replaced Thurgood Marshall

Makes it even worse.

[malaise]

8. My father just rolled in his grave

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah - oops! at myself

[jtuck004]

15. I don't think so. Not even close. n/t

[lastlib]

16. He didn't REPLACE Marshall--

Last edited Sun Nov 2, 2014, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

he just took his seat. There is a HUGE difference.

[heaven05]

27. huge difference

[ReRe]

5. I thought Clarence Thomas replaced...

... Thurgood Marshall? Yes, he was nominated and brought to the bench by GHWB.

[malaise]

9. He did

ROFL at me

[ReRe]

12. Honey Bunny...

... I thought it was MY mind that was leaving me!

[malaise]

17. Hahahahahahaha

I had Curt Flood on my mind from an earlier discussion at home - how the hell did I mix up Warren and Marshall.

[Enthusiast]

34. You are so right on, malaise.

And remember how we endured several decades of those miscreants rant about legislating from the bench.

[sadoldgirl]

3. Just another reason for disqualifying him! n/t

[PeoViejo]

6. Uncle Thomas was Poppy Bush's backhanded insult on African Americans

I think it one of the most despicable things he has done, and there are many.

[noiretextatique]

54. bingo...it was an offensive, cynical

slap in the face to african americans, and to the memory of thurgood marshall. thomas is lower than a piece of shit, imho.

[2banon]

56. Insult on Women.

pretty much said sexual harassment at the work place is oky doky.

[Blue Idaho]

7. Piece of work - no

Piece of shit - yes...

[kickysnana]

29. Arrogant, mean, two-faced, traitorous, ignorant, lazy piece of shit.

May he reap what he sows.

[missmo1951]

10. The man comes across as seriously mentally ill.

I would hope his peers encourage him to get help. I mean forgetting to report his his wife's Tea Party income, turning his back on attorneys. He isn't mentally or ethically fit to serve.

[former9thward]

11. An untrue story.

If such an incident occurred it would have been widely reported by reporters who cover the court. Also the chairs the Justices sit in are fixed and it would not even be possible.

There are enough true things to criticize Thomas for, no need to make up bs.

[rurallib]

19. I had heard Jeffery Toobin say that on the radio about a year ago

tried to find it on google but couldn't.
Could only find this

As for Thomas, he is physically transformed from his infamous confirmation hearings, in 1991—a great deal grayer and heavier today, at the age of sixty-five. He also projects a different kind of silence than he did earlier in his tenure. In his first years on the Court, Thomas would rock forward, whisper comments about the lawyers to his neighbors Breyer and Kennedy, and generally look like he was acknowledging where he was. These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called “not paying attention.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-disgraceful-silence

fwiw

[former9thward]

35. As you tried.

Nothing on the internet. It is made up.

[rurallib]

49. not made up - heard it on the radio

just can't source it.

[SunSeeker]

31. The chairs were not fixed when I observed SCOTUS 13 years ago.

The chairs definitely moved. As did the justices. At one point, Rehnquist stood up and walked behind the red velvet curtain being the chairs. Someone explained to me it was because he had a bad back and couldn't sit long, so he'd listen from behind the curtain. It was weird to just see an empty chair there as the lawyers made their arguments.

[former9thward]

36. It is made up.

Nothing on the internet. Nothing by SC reporters.

[SunSeeker]

39. Not much reported about Rehnquist leaving the coutoom either.

And as I recall, Thomas would stare off into space, tilt back in his chair or turn to the side, as if trying to get comfortable so he could go to sleep--which he appeared to be at times. I can see how one of those moves can be perceived by an observer in the courtroom as him turning his back.

The fact is, Thomas has turned his back on civil rights, certainly figuratively if not literally.

[former9thward]

40. So you are admiting the OP was made up.

A lie. "And as I recall" Recall from what? You ever see SC oral arguments? I have, many times. What you are posting is BS. Argue facts not BS.

[SunSeeker]

42. No I'm not admitting the OP is a lie. You admitting you lied about "fixed chairs"?

I have been to the Supreme Court on many occasions and personnally observed dozens of oral arguments during the last years of Rehnquist's tenure.

I wasn't there for the recent civil rights cases, so I don't know if Thomas turned his back or not. But as I said, the way Thomas turns in his chair and looks away, I can see him doing that or at least looking like he's doing that...and it not getting any press, like Rehnquist walking out never got much press. There are no cameras in the room, and the Supreme Court reporters tend to concentrate on what is being said by the lawyers or asked by the justices. Since Thomas never says a word, he does not get their attention.

[former9thward]

50. I have attended several oral arguments.

I also was on a tour of the court and it appeared to me the chair were fixed. If, if you are really telling the truth that you have "been to the Supreme Court on many occasions and personnally observed dozens of oral arguments during the last years of Rehnquist's tenure" do you really think that reporters would ignore Thomas turning his back during oral arguments? You have no credibility if you think they would have. It is Lie.

[SunSeeker]

55. I don't know for certain what happened. Neither do you. Neither of us were there.

What I do know from actually observing Thomas with my own eyes in numerous oral arguments is that he shamefully ignores the attorneys, stares off into space, looks up at the ceiling, turns to the side and closes his eyes. He almost never asks a question. The few times he has in his years on the bench, the questions were banal, or worse, his attempt at a lame joke. The man shows total disrespect to the advocates, and to the solemnity of the occasion. That fact that this is not reported much in the media does not mean it does not happen.

I am not sure what the women the OP is referring to meant by Thomas turning his back. If he had turned to the side, looking at the wall (as I had seen him do), I could understand how someone standing in front of him would perceive that as him turning his back to them.

I wasn't there at that civil rights case argument. Neither were you. You do not know if it was a lie or not. Neither do I. But from what I have observed of Thomas, I can see how someone observing his antics for the first time would consider him having turned his back.

If you had observed oral argument for any length of time, you would have seen that the chairs move. Of course, if you are touring the Supreme Court with no Justices there, the chairs will all be empty and pointing forward. It is not impossible for Thomas to have turned his back, and your assertion that is was impossible is not correct. It is you who has lost credibility here.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with defending Thomas on this point and painting the OP as lies. Odd.

[former9thward]

58. Oh, now it is the strawman of "defending Thomas"

Good try to shut down discussion. If you want to attack Thomas do it on the merits, not made up BS.

[SunSeeker]

60. His disrespectful antics at oral argument are not "made up BS." nt

[former9thward]

61. "Turning his back" is totally made up.

[SunSeeker]

62. Do you agree that Thomas turned his back on civil rights at least figuratively?

Again, neither of us were at that oral argument, so we don’t know exactly what the lawyers meant by "turned his back." As I said, in light of the antics that have been reported and that I have seen first hand, he could certainly appear to have turned his back by moving in his chair and looking to the side. It does not have to mean he stood up dramatically and faced the red curtain. You seem so set on calling the OP a liar though.

Do you agree that Thomas is at best disinterested in oral argument in general and hostile to civil rights cases in particular?

[former9thward]

63. Thomas is the foremost libertarian on the court.

So, yes, he is hostile to civil rights cases. As a libertarian he often does separate opinions than Scalia so he is not a clone or follower of Scalia who is a hard conservative and disdains libertarianism.

He does not ask questions at oral argument because he says the Justices have already made up their minds about a case so it is a waste of time. On this point many lawyers agree that oral arguments are more of a show than legal substance.

[SunSeeker]

64. Are you blaming his hostility to civil rights cases on his Libertarianism?

Why would a supposed Libertarian oppose marriage equality, as Thomas does? Or abortion? Why would he almost always vote against challenges to search and seizure abuses? Indeed, Thomas voted to allow the search in Navarette while Scala joined three liberal justices in dissent.

That Libertarianism explanation makes no sense. Are you a Libertarian?

[former9thward]

65. No I am not a Libertarian.

I am an old fashioned liberal. Not a warmed over socialist "progressive" that never wins an election anywhere except Sanders in VT and he is not really a socialist. I was trying to explain Thomas' positions and you turn around a call me a Libertarian. Since you are unable to carry on a decent conversation then email Thomas yourself and ask him his positions.

[SunSeeker]

66. I didn't call you a Libertarian. I asked if you were one, since you are so sure Thomas is.

You are pretty touchy for someone who so freely calls others liars.

Yeah, I figured your Libertarianism explanation made no sense. I don't blame you for not wanting to defend it. I think Thomas is more hard right conservative than Scalia.

I didn't know Thomas responded to emails. You have his email address?

[former9thward]

67. I just attended a lecture last week by Lawrence Tribe.

Tribe is a Harvard Law professor who is the leading liberal constitutional scholar in the U.S. His students and research assistants have included President Obama, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor. In the lecture he said Thomas was the court's foremost libertarian. I expect now you will try to slur Tribe and call him a libertarian or worse.

I don't have anybody's email but given the SC is a major branch of government there must be some way of contacting them. Go for it. Yes, I freely call people liars who totally make up stories. There is NO way anyone can read the OP except that Thomas physically got up and turned around while the civil rights lawyer were presenting. If you read all the responses that is exactly how people read the OP.

[SunSeeker]

68. Tribe has been wrong before. If Tribe said that, then I disagree with him on that point.

Fancy degrees/titles don't mean infallibility. Tribe has said some stupid things, like his recent opinion piece agreeing with the McCullen v. Coakey decision, claiming the 35-foot buffer that decision overturned was not necessary to protect women. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/the-supreme-court-was-right-to-allow-anti-abortion-protests.html?_r=0 He is simply out of touch with reality on that one. And if he thinks Thomas is a Libertarian in the traditional sense, then he is wrong there too. Thomas, based on his actions on the Supreme Court, is a right wing political hack.

[mfcorey1]

43. I will get the lawyers name. She does a radio show on WAOK in Atlanta and she

says she was in attendance at the hearing. Now if she is lying, I cannot imagine why. The show is called the Sisters In Law. The program is hosted by two sisters who are lawyers.

[former9thward]

51. Reporters would have reported it.

It is made up.

[jtuck004]

13. Shouldn't they ask for a continuance until all the judges are present? n/t

[elleng]

14. How would he do that?

The Justices are seated during oral arguments.

[indepat]

18. It's childish impudent, and demeaning for a Supreme to turn his back to the lawyers arguing a case

before the Court, but is is criminal, maybe treasonable imo, for a Supreme to turn his back on the Constitution of the United States.

[former9thward]

37. It never happened. A made up story.

[COLGATE4]

53. Too bad we're giving this so much attention.

Thomas has a plethora of things he can rightly be accused of, aside from his sheer arrogance and his burning desire to pull up the ladder now that he has arrived so we clearly don't need this kind of made-up crap. This is exactly the type of thing that the RW talkers love to crucify Democrats about.

[indepat]

57. Oops! Justice Thomas' actual peccadilloes are voluminous and outrageous enough to not need

help or embellishment from detractors and other non-true-believers.

[Akbar]

20. Affirmative Action is a Really Horrible Idea

Affirmative action can do some great things.

But it can be abused. Such as when GHWB appointed Clarence Thomas to the colored seat in SCOTUS.

There were dozens of millions of African-American people who were more qualified to sit on SCOTUS, but GHWB figured that he would give the job to the one man who was least-capable to handle the job.

[nc4bo]

22. Black on the outside, wears a white hooded Pamper on the other.

He needs to go as do the other undemocratic pieces of shit taking up space.

[heaven05]

23. It was an extremely

cynical appointment given that Thurgood Marshall's seat was the one he was filling. Disgusting human being. GHWB knew exactly what he was doing.

[heaven05]

21. doesn't surprise me

not someone for young black people to emulate in principle. Yes for striving to gain the high court to try and bring some balance to the racist stupid bullshit coming from those judges.

[procon]

24. That's another good reason to have live TV coverage of the SCOTUS. nt

[former9thward]

38. No need of TV coverage.

There are SC reporters present. If the incident reported by the OP happened it would have been reported. It didn't. The OP was made up.

[SunSeeker]

44. I agree. It should be on C-Span. These arguments are supposed to be open to the public.

But the Supreme Court is a surprisingly small room. There is little space for the public, and many standing in line never get in. The television media don't bother, since no cameras are allowed, leaving the reporting to staid old Supreme Court reporters who are law wonks and frankly don't do a good job explaining what is happening in layman terms.

What goes on in the Supreme Court affects us all. These 9 unelected justices wield tremendous power. The American public should be able to observe every move the justices make as they sit on the people's bench. Thomas' shameful silence and boredom should be displayed for the public to see. The Supreme Court arguments should be on c-span like Congress. There is no excuse for keeping out discreetly placed cameras.

[turbinetree]

25. IMPEACH

I know that this will probably never happen but Thomas and his wife along with some other right wing justices lets say all 5, should be impeached, they go to events sponsored by the Koch and they also get gifts is this not against the law. And Thomas's wife is on the board of a right wing tea party group, so, the least these 5 hypocrites can do is recuse themselves from the hearing and voting, but we all know that is not going to happen until hell freezes over and we will continue the slide into a third world state since they sit on the bench taking this democracy down the proverbial tube

[Festivito]

46. His wife's consulting job pay can work as bribes.

Add to that, the free vacations to 'visit' the Koch brothers, and he has no problem making less than 1/2 of what his wife makes.

He illegally did not acknowledge his wife's income that could lead to countless conflicts of interest.

It all makes me wonder if they slowly Poloniumed Thurgood Marshall. The switching of the five four majority led to the theft of 1/2 America's wealth.

[Archae]

26. This is why I have a hunch that Anita Hill was a GOP plant.

Thomas was being raked over the coals big time, for his idiotic views.

Suddenly Anita Hill provided one heckuva distraction from that.

[heaven05]

28. could be

hmmmmm

[brewens]

52. Not a plant probably but I suspect it was Republicans that leaked her statements. n/t

[mountain grammy]

30. He's a lot heavier, so is Scalia.

If there's any justice, their arteries are hard as a rock and they aren't long for this world.

[EEO]

32. Clarence Thomas should have been removed from the bench for more cases where he had...

a blatant conflict of interest than I have fingers and toes. Why does he even show up at all? He almost always keeps his stupid conservative mouth shut.

[davidpdx]

33. I think I also read somewhere that he leans back in his chair with his eyes closed

during arguments. I have to wonder how many times he's decided he's rather not listen.

[Doc_Technical]

41. If my memory serves me correctly

GHW Bush said something to the effect that when he nominated Thomas
that race had nothing to do with it and he picked the best man
available.

By the way, does Thomas ever talk ouit loud while the court is in session?

[SunSeeker]

45. Thanks for the update.

There is only one DUer on this thread who says this story is untrue (though not based on personal knowledge), but he/she is posting all over this thread.

[Festivito]

47. Literally or figuratively turned his back? Link? eom.

[AngryAmish]

48. Many justices on appellate courts hate oral arguments

The job is mostly text related. They have heard all the arguments, if the cases are well briefed. At the suoreme court all the cases are well briefed. Getting information through speech is slow.

Also, a lot of the time a question is asked just to haze the lawyer.

[former9thward]

59. Update is a lie.

How come no SC reporters reported this? Turning your back would be a dramatic act and would have been widely reported. It is made up.