Casual Observation

13 Comments

1. 

   rikyrah on May 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm

   Unca Clarence

   Scalia
   Roberts
   Alito

   how’s that for guessing off the top of my head

   • 

     BooMan on May 17, 2010 at 3:48 pm

     we have a winner.  I bet you didn’t have to think too hard.

     • 

       The Voice In The Wilderness on May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm

       I didn’t have to think at all. Just like them!

2. 

   DaveW on May 17, 2010 at 4:00 pm

   Here’s the absolutely jaw-dropping contribution from Thomas, from AP’s report:

   Thomas criticized the majority for imposing “its own sense of morality and retributive justice” on state lawmakers and voters who chose to give state judges the option of life-without-parole sentences.

   “I am unwilling to assume that we, as members of this court, are any more capable of making such moral judgments than our fellow citizens,” Thomas said.

   So near as I can tell he’s saying screw the Constitution, forget courts and let state legislatures decide who has rights and who doesn’t — precisely the the opposite of why we have courts in the first place.

   Seems to me a “justice” who doesn’t think the Supreme Court has either the right or the capability to decide Constitutional issues needs to either resign or be impeached. Thomas has finally deteriorated to the Palin level. Mental incapacity is a prime ground for impeachment IIRC.

3. 

   JanetT in MD on May 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm

   Even better:

       JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.

       In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS argues that today’s holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in (citations omitted). Given that “evolving standards of decency” have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, (Citation omitted), this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does JUSTICE THOMAS’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commit- ment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete, post, at 8-9, and n. 2.

       While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old . . ., the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

   (diary at the top of the rec list on DKos: Clarence Thomas Smacked Down Like Never Before)

   It is very unusual to be so pointed in a formal opinion. Wow.

   • 

     MNPundit on May 17, 2010 at 4:47 pm

     Must be a typo. Perhaps they mean 1890. Or even 980.

   • 

     The Voice In The Wilderness on May 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm

     Justice Stevens said that about Thomas? You didn’t add it yourself? Wow!

     • 

       JanetT in MD on May 17, 2010 at 7:54 pm

       According to the original diary, that’s in the actual concurring opinion.  It’s definitely an “ouch” — from Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor.

        

4. 

   Steven D on May 17, 2010 at 5:13 pm

   To Clarence Thomas the only cruel and unusual punishment he believes ever existed was his “lynching” by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

5. 

   dannie22 on May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   Give Ole Clarence a break. I mean he’s an originalist and from what I understand that means reading the constitution like it was 1781.

   A black man who wants to go back to 1781? He needs a good therapist. Apparently he’s suffering from delusions that a mirror can’t cure.

   • 

     Geov Parrish on May 17, 2010 at 7:30 pm

     Wait a minute…if it’s 1781, what are we doing with only 8 3/5 justices? Isn’t there 2/5ths of a vacancy?

6. 

   Geov Parrish on May 17, 2010 at 7:28 pm

   Meanwhile, don’t get too comfortable with this victory. The court also decided today that sex offenders can be held indefinitely if they’re deemed to be a continuing threat, a practice that a number of states (including mine) have taken up.

   I understand the logic of predatory sexual urges being extremely difficult to “cure,” but from a civil libertarian standpoint this is a very, very slippery slope. It renders actual sentences virtually meaningless. And in general I don’t see how hounding sex offenders once they’re released (all the rage these days) is supposed to keep these guys from reoffending or help them integrate into society.

7. 

   LiberalForReal on May 18, 2010 at 8:43 am

   But of course rapists serve 3 – 5 years, if that, and then get to rape again.