SCOTUS Opinion Poll 6: Justice Clarence Thomas

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Vote!

[Daniel Adams]

Strongly approve. I agree with his judicial philosophy the most out of all the SCOTUS judges.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Strongly approve for pretty much the same reason.

[Sam Spade]

Probably the weakest writer on the Court, but simply not afraid to state an opinion that might be viewed as unpopular because he thinks it's correct.  So approve.

[A18]

Approve. Despite the popular legend that he merely follows Justice Scalia's lead--popular among leftists, except those that have some idea what they're talking about--Justice Thomas is a perfectly able and independent jurist. And his substantive views, while not perfect, are better than those of anyone else on the Court.

Spade, could you elaborate? I've never found his writing to be particularly "weak." (Of course, given the prominent role of law clerks in drafting and revising opinions...)

[Sam Spade]

Approve. Despite the popular legend that he merely follows Justice Scalia's lead--popular among leftists, except those that have some idea what they're talking about--Justice Thomas is a perfectly able and independent jurist. And his substantive views, while not perfect, are better than those of anyone else on the Court.

Spade, could you elaborate? I've never found his writing to be particularly "weak." (Of course, given the prominent role of law clerks in drafting and revising opinions...)

Weak, as in pedantic, not particularly interesting or enlightening.  That doesn't mean his ideas aren't interesting or enlightening, but they are expressed in a rather mundane way.  Of course, maybe it appears weak because both Scalia and Roberts are such good writers.  At least he doesn't bore to death like Souter.

[Dr. Cynic]

Probably the least deserving of his place on the Court. He is silent in session. Does not write dazzling opinions. Much more stridently state's rights than his closest ideological companion, Scalia. Not learned or interesting.

Strongly disapprove.

[A18]

The position that his substantive views disqualify him is entirely respectable. But tell me. How often do you think John Marshall and his colleagues asked questions at oral argument? And how many justices ever authored "dazzling opinions"? Those criteria reflect a rather odd view of what makes someone "deserving of his place on the Court."

[Dr. Cynic]

The position that his substantive views disqualify him is entirely respectable. But tell me. How often do you think John Marshall and his colleagues asked questions at oral argument? And how many justices ever authored "dazzling opinions"? Those criteria reflect a rather odd view of what makes someone "deserving of his place on the Court."

The Court has changed since Marshall's time, though. It has long been a common practice to interrogate lawyers during arguements.

Harry Blackmun's "Poor Joshua" is an example of a dazzling opinion. As is William Brennan's on the death penalty being cruel and unusual punishment.

I don't feel he was really deserving of a place on Court. Scalia, for all I disagree with him, I can't deny he is brilliant. My opinion of Thomas is just the opposite. He says little, and does little.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of the 9 Justices currently on the Court, Thomas is the only one I feel is unfit to serve.  Scalia, who is just as conservative as Thomas, is very deserving, and shows that he belongs on the Court.  Thomas, on the otherhand, has done nothing to prove that he is fit to serve on the Court; no brilliant opinions, no grilling of attorneys during oral argument, etc.

And, of course, I totally disagree with 95% of his views.

[A18]

The position that his substantive views disqualify him is entirely respectable. But tell me. How often do you think John Marshall and his colleagues asked questions at oral argument? And how many justices ever authored "dazzling opinions"? Those criteria reflect a rather odd view of what makes someone "deserving of his place on the Court."

The Court has changed since Marshall's time, though. It has long been a common practice to interrogate lawyers during arguements.

No doubt. But so what? The point is that it's irrelevant to the actual work of the Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I personally found neither of those two raw policy pronouncements to be "dazzling." (Though I'm not positive which Brennan opinion you have in mind.) But very well. Now what is to be said of John Marshall, Joseph Story, or (for that matter) James Wilson? Were they, too, unfit to serve?

A court opinion is supposed to be a skilled and technical exposition of the law; not an amateur work of poetry.

[Dr. Cynic]

The position that his substantive views disqualify him is entirely respectable. But tell me. How often do you think John Marshall and his colleagues asked questions at oral argument? And how many justices ever authored "dazzling opinions"? Those criteria reflect a rather odd view of what makes someone "deserving of his place on the Court."

The Court has changed since Marshall's time, though. It has long been a common practice to interrogate lawyers during arguements.

No doubt. But so what? The point is that it's irrelevant to the actual work of the Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I personally found neither of those two raw policy pronouncements to be "dazzling." (Though I'm not positive which Brennan opinion you have in mind.) But very well. Now what is to be said of John Marshall, Joseph Story, or (for that matter) James Wilson? Were they, too, unfit to serve?

A court opinion is supposed to be a skilled and technical exposition of the law; not an amateur work of poetry.

Each justice can be exceptional for different reasons... I don't think Thomas has authored a skilled opinion either. I think Joseph Story was an good justice who delivered a memorable opinion in The Armisted Case, as was John Marshall, who wrote most of the opinions of his court. I'm not very familiar with Wilson's opinions, so I cannot say on him.