A Supreme Court sketch artist pretty much drew Clarence Thomas sleeping:

[kpete]

Supreme Court sketch artist drew Clarence Thomas in what appears to be a state of deep hibernation.



Clarence Thomas is known for having a very calm disposition during oral arguments at the Supreme Court. He has a habit of reclining in his seat and closing his eyes and recently asked a question of an attorney for the first time in a decade. Veteran courtroom observers say that this doesn't mean he's disengaged, per se—he's not actually sleeping, and between his moments of repose he looks at briefs, writes notes, etc. He's paying attention.

And yet, in the drawing above by longtime SCOTUS artist Arthur Lien of an eventful Wednesday hearing, I will be damned if it does not really look like Clarence Thomas is deeply and profoundly asleep or possibly 100 percent dead.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/22/supreme_court_sketch_artist_draws_clarence_thomas_deep_in_thought.html

[Califonz]

1. The Supreme Court still bans cameras

So sketches are the only way to get the truth out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. They ban any and all recording devices

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

for the most part most federal courts do that as well. A few here and there will allow a recorder in... If I have to cover the federal court, I just make sure I have plenty of notebooks and new pens. I have gone so far as bring pencils. Humorous but somebody did try to bring a pen recorder, so after that... leave the pens at home with that particular judge. Ah number two pencils work fine, and I mean plain old pencils

[turbinetree]

28. The only Institution" that doesn't allow this.......................

gosh if I was found sleeping in a class room, I was marched right down to the principles office, parents called and had to do some "explaining", but I forget, he is one of the exalted ones, the grand "pooh bah".

Maybe good old Cruzless can research his material, after reading Jane Myers book about him, he was and still is one of the most unqualified, deceitful people on that bench, besides the other three right wingers, he should have been disallowed to sit there, I mean really---------------------------


And to to top it all off, I know if I was in there trying a case, I would ask, the head chief hypocrite himself, if its permissible--------------------------I mean really---------------------no respect at all........................

Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[L. Coyote]

43. The last time I fell asleep in the classroom

all my students left.

kidding!

[turbinetree]

44. That was good...................Touche..............................

[MADem]

47. No, that's UNTRUE. Audio recordings of Supreme Court arguments are readily available on the web.

The Supremes have been recording arguments since 1955 and these are in the National Archives.

The last five years or so are available on the web:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The supreme court does it

Reporters do not.

And federal courts do not allow reporters to bring recorders. State courts do. It is a judge be judge kind of a thing. In fact my local federal court has a nice sign that says no recorders or cameras allowed in

Truly it is not that complicated. Really. These efforts to attack are funny as shit at this point. I thought I was clear when I said REPORTERS. Oh and I am sure you will school me and tell me the court does not allow cameras either. Perhaps the USSC will allow those in 20 years. There has been discussion, but because of federal court rules we still have court artists. And boy, those guys and gals are amazing to watch

[MADem]

58. Well, DUH. But that's not what you said, is it?

No one is "attacking" you--you purport to make your money as a "reporter?"

You might try being CLEAR in your writing.

smh.


Have the last word and a nice day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Yes it is

nadinbrzezinski (149,894 posts)
15. They ban any and all recording devices

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

for the most part most federal courts do that as well. A few here and there will allow a recorder in... If I have to cover the federal court, I just make sure I have plenty of notebooks and new pens. I have gone so far as bring pencils. Humorous but somebody did try to bring a pen recorder, so after that... leave the pens at home with that particular judge. Ah number two pencils work fine, and I mean plain old pencils

I am talking of a REPORTER, in this case it would be me.

Nice way to deflect and "not understand"

I was answering to this post

Califonz (288 posts)
1. The Supreme Court still bans cameras

So sketches are the only way to get the truth out.

Your misunderstanding is purposeful, and we both know it.

As to attacks. come on, the bat signal went out after I stated quite clearly that I consider US Elections not to be clean anymore or legitimate and i pretend to vote. These are truly hilarious attempt becuase the level of coordination has been quite funny to watch.

So please have the last word. I am going to continue to laugh at this. It is hilarious shit really.

[MADem]

60. .

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. As expected, let me join you since the joke is truly on you

and please do

[corkhead]

2. at least he didn't put floating "zzzzzz"s over his head

[Fritz Walter]

6. Wait for it

Some political cartoonist -- or someone really good at photo-shopping -- is no doubt working on enhancing this image this very minute.

[Old Crow]

35. You called?

[FSogol]

40. DUzy!

[Fritz Walter]

49. Nicely done!

The sleep apnea sound-effect is a nice touch.

[Old Crow]

57. Thanks. It was a fun diversion. (N/T)

[heaven05]

3. pappy Bush

to have appointed this individual to the nations highest court, especially with this appointment being right after the retirement of a brillant man/Justice like Thurgood Marshall, was to me and still is the height of cynicism and disrespect to the citizens of the United States.

[dchill]

22. +1,000,001

[malaise]

29. +1,000

and we will never forgive him

[lordsummerisle]

36. Totally agree

and I seem to remember Bush saying at the time that this was the most qualified jurist he could find...

[farleftlib]

62. Too true

And we had 8 years of his feckless son thanks in part to him.

[2naSalit]

4. That's why he never

talks or asks questions, well almost never, guess he spoke up for the first time in a decade last month...Must b e nice to have a job were you don't really have to do anything other than show up and be seen and then pass judgement in private where influences can't be seen. He's paid for kochtopus shill and needs to be removed from the bench... asshole.

[NobodyHere]

16. Most Supreme Court work is done behind the scenes

Justices generally know how they're going to vote before oral arguments even happen.

[Major Nikon]

19. So why even do it at all?

Even if the only point of oral arguments was purely ceremonial (and I'm not convinced it is), you still have the fact that someone whose only job is pretty much to NOT fall asleep during oral arguments is falling asleep during oral arguments. It still means he's an utter disgrace to everything the court stands for.

[A Simple Game]

52. Likely true about the vote but didn't his decision maker die recently? n/t

[MoonchildCA]

5. That was like Where's Waldo.

I seriously thought the wrong picture was posted and had to look at it multiple times before I saw him...

[Surya Gayatri]

10. Me, too. And, when I finally spotted his lolling head, I LOLed!

What a laughing stock of a "Justice".

[AlbertCat]

12. Ditto

Maybe they ran out of chairs and he's sitting on an overturned bucket.

[airplaneman]

39. Me too - then post 35 made it all clear. n/t.

[Hoppy]

7. Well, fuck yoose. He had an itch and didn't want to appear to be scratching it in public. So he

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

slid down in his chair and scratched it when nobody could see him do it. You can see the look of relief and contentment on his face.

Now, if yoose never had crabs, you don't know how uncomfortable it can make you. By the way, if you do get crabs, the blue ointment does help.

[StarzGuy]

24. I'm Still Wondering...

...Who put the pubes on the Coca Cola? Ha, ha. What a douche bag. Clarence Slap Happy Thomas.

[blue neen]

37. Hahahaha!

Now, that was funny!

[3catwoman3]

8. "profoundly asleep or possibly 100 percent dead."

The latter state would be fine. He can join Scalia any time.

[rug]

9. The case is wheher refusal to take a breath test in a DUI stop can carry criminal penalties.

If you accept the prosection argments, there's sufficient cause to give Thomas a breathalyzer.

[tabasco]

11. I want to LMAO, but it is so sad that such an incompetent idiot

sits on our highest court. Our society is SICK, when people like this can attain positions of such power and influence.

[RiverNoord]

13. Well, the funny thing about democracy...

is that competency is rarely, if ever, a requirement for elected office.

And the Constitution has no requirements, whatsoever, for Supreme Court justices.

Thomas is awful, but he's not at all the worst we've had...

[tabasco]

20. If there is an informed, intelligent and engaged electorate,

then competency is an absolute qualification for office. With an ignorant and brainwashed electorate, the TV tells voters who is competent.

Tell me which 20th/21st century USSC justice was worse than Thomas. I'll help you out. Scalia. Who's next?

Of course, you are incorrect about the constitutional requirements for Supreme Court justices. The constitution requires that a justice be nominated by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate. That is something more than, "no requirements, whatsoever," as you stated.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current member of the Supreme Court who has explicitly embraced the reasoning of Lochner Era decisions striking down nationwide child labor laws and making similar attacks on federal power. Indeed, under the logic Thomas first laid out in a concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez, the federal minimum wage, overtime rules, anti-discrimination protections for workers, and even the national ban on whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional.
Though Thomas’s views are rare today, they have, sadly, not been the least bit uncommon during the Supreme Court’s history. He makes this list because, frankly, he should know better than his predecessors. As I explain in Injustices, many of the justices who resisted progressive legislation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were, like Field, motivated by ideology. Many others, however, were motivated by fear of the rapid changes state and federal lawmakers implemented in the wake of the even more rapid changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It was possible to believe, in a world where factories, railroads, and the laws required to regulate factories and railroads were all very new things, that these laws would, as Herbert Hoover once said about the New Deal, “destroy the very foundations of our American system” by extending “government into our economic and social life.”
But Thomas has the benefit of eighty years of American history that Hoover had not witnessed when he warned of an overreaching government. In that time, the Supreme Court largely abandoned the values embraced by Justice Field, and the United States became the mightiest nation in the history of politics and the wealthiest nation in the history of money.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/24/3636905/five-worst-supreme-court-justices-american-history-ranked/

[RiverNoord]

55. Yeah - those aren't 'qualifications,' they are just the procedures

for how someone gets the position. You can't just walk into the Supreme Court and declare 'I'm a Supreme Court Justice.' You don't have to be a lawyer or a judge, there are no age requirements such as for members of the House and Senate, or for the President. All you need is to be nominated and confirmed. Remember when Bush W. nominated Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor? It was bizarre, and there was plenty of talk about how she wasn't qualified (he had to withdraw her nomination), but that was just politics. Formal qualifications don't exist in the Constitution, and no law can make any - it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change that.

Here's a ThinkProgress link with the classic 4 really awful Supreme Court justices of all time, and Thomas:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/24/3636905/five-worst-supreme-court-justices-american-history-ranked/

McReynolds was a notorious bigot. He literally did not speak to Justice Brandeis (the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice ever) for a full three years after Brandeis's assumption of office. Not in any personal or professional capacity - there are lots of anecdotes of very awkward silences during in-session dialogue that would normally necessitate basic communications between the Justices... And, regardless of the nature of the opinion, he wouldn't sign any written by Brandeis.

He would usually leave the courtroom when a female lawyer began arguments.

In 1922, when then-Chief Justice Taft invited the Court to a ceremonial event in Philadelphia, McReynolds refused to attend, and this was part of his written response: "As you know, I am not always to be found when there is a Hebrew abroad. Therefore, my 'inability' to attend must not surprise you."

And, generally, he was a tremendous ass to all his colleagues and staff. He hated FDR and insulted him in writing and comments made to just about anyone who would listen. He got into a golf club(Chevy Chase) solely because of his position, and he came a hair's breadth away from getting kicked out. Two other Justices who were also members actually left the club because they just couldn't stand it.

So, yeah, he's a 20th century example of a Supreme Court Justice way worse than Thomas.

And Scalia wasn't quite worse than Thomas. He actually was pretty serious about 4th Amendment search and seizure stuff. He wrote the Kyllo v. United States majority opinion (a 5/4 decision) where it was ruled that police could not use thermal imaging from outside a home to detect signs of pot growing without a warrant. He also wrote the Florida v. Jardines majority opinion (another 5/4 decision) that ruled that using drug-sniffing dogs while outside a person's home (on their property) required a warrant/probable cause.

Although Scalia was a jerk, and extremely pro-corporate, at least some of his opinions actually make sense. Try read one of the few opinions written by Thomas sometime - the 'reasoning' is horrendous. And he regularly references the 'intent' of the Framers of the Constitution in ways that make Constitutional scholars go 'WTF?'

The point I was trying to make is that there really shouldn't be 'qualifications' for major offices in a representative democracy. States have, in the past, restricted voters and those who could stand for office to white males, white males who met a property requirement, white males who weren't Jews, Catholics or atheists (the 'religious test' provision in the Constitution has always been window dressing - no case has ever been tried on the subject), well, you get the picture.

As soon as you state 'qualifications' for holding elected office in a representative democracy, you guarantee that it won't be representative.

[Sanity Claws]

14. Haha

If I were the Justice sitting next to him, I would have felt like poking him the ribs with my elbow.
His behavior reflects poorly on the Court and entire government.

[Fritz Walter]

50. Not me

I'd put his hand in a pan of warm water...

[Nay]

54. OMG, LOL! What a good idea!

[Visionary]

17. Just perfect

Those responsible for deciding whether our laws are constitutional are a bunch of sleepy old people. SCOTUS needs 20 year term limits or something.

[mopinko]

18. hope the artist's resume is up to date.

will be interesting to see what happens to the guy next.

[user.ben]

21. troi oi

Eo eo chang hieu gi

[dchill]

23. Thomas would seem to be quite the socialist.

Letting the conscious 7 remaining justices to carry his load.

[nilram]

25. "Just listening with my eyes closed." At least, that's what my partner tells *me*.

[book_worm]

26. I wonder what he does now that Fat Tony isn't around to tell him how to vote?

[47of74]

46. Probably Alito

[PatrickforO]

27. Justice Thomas certainly does look very calm!

Glad to know that all the justices pay such rapt attention to rulings that will affect the American people, sometimes profoundly.

[PearliePoo2]

30. Asleep all the time, eh?

Sounds like apnea to me. Physically, he looks like the perfect candidate.
Gee...untreated sleep apnea, you often just die in your sleep. Just sayin'

[rusty fender]

31. He needs to nap during the day

because he's up all night watching a few of the movies in his extensive porn collection.

[Gothmog]

32. Thomas made the list of the five worse SCOTUS justices of all time

[felix_numinous]

33. The two other judges acting like 'business as usual'

is revealing as well, they are all negligent. Wow, this art and the photo of Lady Liberty in zip ties are worth 1,000s of words.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

34. K&R, LOL

He does not look dead.

[demigoddess]

38. My dad used to call it "checking my eyelids for holes"

but then he had a sense of humor and it was after a long day's work.

[radicalliberal]

41. Nah, he's just a very short man.

[L. Coyote]

42. Who's the deaf guy cupping his ear?

And the guy day dreaming is ... ?

And where is the empty chair the Republicans say is theirs now because Reagan once appointed a guy to sit in it?

[Liberal_in_LA]

45. Embarrassing, he needs to retire

[mdbl]

48. Maybe he's having an erotic dream

having to do with Coke cans or somethin.

[Ford_Prefect]

51. Cruising on auto-pilot? Bench testing another recliner?