tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post5779450335213994915..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: When Will They Apologize to Clarence Thomas?Frank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-79947935147546647072010-02-21T10:09:17.055-07:002010-02-21T10:09:17.055-07:00в конце концов: шикарно! а82чв конце концов: шикарно! а82чAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-87015580474866533722010-01-27T21:32:02.770-07:002010-01-27T21:32:02.770-07:00It is certainly interesting for me to read this bl...It is certainly interesting for me to read this blog. Thanks for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to this matter. BTW, why don't you change design :).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-24128335653353024002007-11-27T13:56:00.000-07:002007-11-27T13:56:00.000-07:00This is a good discussion, and I invite you and an...This is a good discussion, and I invite you and anyone else interested to continue it <A HREF="http://oneutah.org/2007/11/27/bush-v-gore-a-judicial-coup-detat/" REL="nofollow">over on One Utah</A>.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-78261010744312141842007-11-27T12:24:00.000-07:002007-11-27T12:24:00.000-07:00How do you figure that it's ad hominem? I said th...How do you figure that it's ad hominem? I said that 'it appeared', and I'm glad that you answered the question. <BR/><BR/>I apologize.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-88325255597955164382007-11-27T12:18:00.000-07:002007-11-27T12:18:00.000-07:00Frank, why resort to ad hominem argument? I voted...Frank, why resort to ad hominem argument? I voted for Ralph Nader, not Gore (in Utah it made no difference anyway). You ascribe my view of the Supreme Court's coup d'etat to mere "feelings." But it's not just my opinion, it's what history will record.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-733604361552367872007-11-26T20:12:00.000-07:002007-11-26T20:12:00.000-07:00Richard,In response to your previous question that...Richard,<BR/><BR/>In response to your previous question that I sum up about Bush v. Gore:<BR/><BR/>Gore asked for a recount in Florida. A recount occurred. Katherine Harris certified that the recount was correct and declared Bush the winner. Gore sued. In a highly politicized decision, the Florida Supreme Court ordered another recount. Bush appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court on December 9. December 11 the case was heard. By federal law, electoral votes had to be certified by December 12. By a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Florida Supreme Court was creating new law by requiring another recount, etc. Courts cannot create new law. Five justices decided correctly on a case that had been properly appealed to them. Four did not. Five justices made a decision based on the law and the facts. Four made a decision based on politics and feelings.<BR/><BR/>It is not correct to say that the US Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush. It is, rather, correct to say that the Court found the Florida Supreme Court "in contempt" of the laws of Florida. The result was that the Attorney General's certification of George W. Bush as the winner was allowed to stand.<BR/><BR/>Good Florida law? I don't know. But tell me how the Florida Supreme Court had a right to change it?<BR/><BR/>It appears to me that your feelings are colored by the fact that you wanted Gore to be president. Mine on the other hand, are not so colored, because I wouldn't have voted for either of the dipsticks if you held a gun to my head.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-19414546939129917602007-11-26T13:21:00.000-07:002007-11-26T13:21:00.000-07:00Further on in the very same paragraph on Wikipedia...Further on in the very same paragraph on Wikipedia:<BR/><BR/>"Since the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case, it is somewhat surprising that the Supreme Court heard <I>Bush v. Gore</I> at all."<BR/><BR/>In other words, there was not a final decision by the Florida Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court went out of bounds to issue a hasty decision. I'm not blaming Clarence Thomas for this, of course, but he went along with it.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-56664937197815756052007-11-26T13:19:00.001-07:002007-11-26T13:19:00.001-07:00Don,Here is a much more skilled refutation of Hill...Don,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010681" REL="nofollow">Here is a much more skilled refutation of Hill's op-ed</A> than is Hill's op-ed a refutation of Thomas's book.<BR/><BR/>I think calling Hill a bald-faced liar would be to draw attention away from the most important points--she didn't come forth until AFTER Thomas had originally been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, she sought (but was denied) to be an anonymous witness, and 3 senators on the Judiciary Committee changed their votes based on this (as determined by the FBI) baseless screed.<BR/><BR/>I think it, rather, correct to call her a pawn in the power game who is now very embarrassed by what she did, but she would be more embarrassed by admitting that someone helped her make it all up.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-37294598410763037402007-11-26T13:19:00.000-07:002007-11-26T13:19:00.000-07:00Frank,There is a difference between telling your s...Frank,<BR/><BR/>There is a difference between telling your storing and writing the equivalent of "look how mean everybody was to me!" And unless you have insider information that the rest of the nation doesn't, I think it is quite an assumption to say his name was "dragged through the mud." Anita Hill was not alone in her allegations, nor did they erupt only after his nomination. More, Thomas lied repeatedly during the hearing (a fact he later admitted, saying it was only the "small stuff" he was dishonest about). This is a man whose respect for the law you admire? These are the actions of a "hero"? It is also important to remember, the investigating Senate committee reported "without recommendation" after the hearings, and then Thomas was in on the smallest vote margin in the history of the court.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I would love to expand on my statement that he is no legal genius. To begin with, he responds FROM THE BENCH with once sentence (sometimes ONE WORD) remarks, and believes the other Justice's "talk too much." Which is ironic, as that is their job, and the only way legal understanding can be achieved within the structure of the court.<BR/><BR/>Other examples: He supports executing the mentally retarded, in a 2001 AEI lecture, he called himself a "martyr" and professed an agenda to stab back at civil-rights groups, he has stated he "can't think of anything good the NAACP has done," he opposes the Calder Vs. Bull decision that basically established foundation of prohibiting retroactive punishment, and has expressed an interest in reexamining basic elements of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which protects workers and civil rights.<BR/><BR/>There are hundreds more like this. Thomas seems to have a vendetta against the civil-rights community, and an intention to take issue (and waste time?) challenging every previous court opinion, just for the sake of challenging it. To me, this says the man lacks intelligence, or vision, or both.<BR/><BR/>Also, Bill Cosby doesn't like him. Heh. Actually, it is a relevant and accurate summation Cosby gives in the interview, so I don't introduce it completely as jest. Cosby called him "Brother, Lite." <BR/><BR/>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/11/04/bill-cosby-brother-lite-clarence-thomas-doesnt-want-help-anybodyJason Thehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15518866228386927143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-90236132243720248742007-11-26T12:37:00.000-07:002007-11-26T12:37:00.000-07:00I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia:"Final j...I'm no expert, but according to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>:<BR/><BR/>"Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had" may be appealed to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-21113330589591758242007-11-26T12:01:00.000-07:002007-11-26T12:01:00.000-07:00Maybe you could just tell me how the Supreme Court...Maybe you could just tell me how the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the Florida recount in 2000.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-52430171150504180592007-11-26T11:25:00.000-07:002007-11-26T11:25:00.000-07:00Richard,Read Supreme Conflict by Jan Crawford Gree...Richard,<BR/><BR/>Read <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Conflict-Inside-Struggle-Control/dp/0143113046/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196101428&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">Supreme Conflict</A> by Jan Crawford Greenburg to get a better understanding of what the court was going through. I don't think that your fact is a fact.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-15723205400485998022007-11-26T11:19:00.000-07:002007-11-26T11:19:00.000-07:00With regard to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court had...With regard to <I>Bush v. Gore</I>, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Thomas and the other Republicans on the Court acted in a partisan political way to appoint a President before the State of Florida could finish a proper recount. That's a fact.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-47303813916901923712007-11-26T11:10:00.000-07:002007-11-26T11:10:00.000-07:00I never said stare decisis was a rule. It is a fu...I never said <I>stare decisis</I> was a rule. It is a fundamental principle of the law which Clarence Thomas does not believe in. He thus shows his ignorance and incompetence as a judge.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-30201416563412335902007-11-26T10:51:00.000-07:002007-11-26T10:51:00.000-07:00Bradley,As a point of response to Jason, I take th...Bradley,<BR/><BR/>As a point of response to Jason, I take the following from James Taranto's article that you link to:<BR/><EM><BR/>A point of personal privilege: We know Justice Thomas, having met him in 1993; and the caricature of him as "angry" and "bitter" is wildly at odds with our own experience. We have always found him to be warm, gracious and avuncular. The last time we saw him, at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, he was ebullient, smiling widely and laughing often. When we arrived, he greeted us with a vigorous handshake and a "Hey, buddy!" If he is bitter and angry, he certainly hides it well.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that he has always been at peace with himself and the world. As a younger man, he went through periods of rage and confusion, as many intelligent and intense young men do. Yet his memoir--which ends in 1991, with his taking a seat on the Supreme Court--is not a lament but a story of struggle and redemption. <BR/></EM>Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-37242420719785446062007-11-26T10:47:00.000-07:002007-11-26T10:47:00.000-07:00Richard,I agree with Bradley's response to you abo...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I agree with Bradley's response to you about stare decisis.<BR/><BR/>It is true that he hadn't been a judge for very long, as hadn't a couple of other current Supreme Court justices (Souter, Gisburg, I think?) Bush I had considered Thomas earlier, but thought that at the time he didn't have enough experience. Thomas was a lawyer --for several years early in his career--working for John Danforth in the state of Missouri.<BR/><BR/>His personal opinion of Roe v Wade before joining the court, ironically, was that the government has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Although he still believes that, he has since looked at the case and felt that Roe was incorrectly decided. I agree.<BR/><BR/>Clarence Thomas DID NOT appoint GW Bush as president. That is a very prejudiced and short-sighted view. It was his opinion that, good or bad, FLORIDA LAW said that there was a limited time period for recounts to occur. Hopefully, Florida has fixed its law by now. No judge has the authority to fix a law that is broken, even if everyone in the world wants to.<BR/><BR/>Thomas opinion in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld was that the courts had no jurisdiction over the matter, and that Congress let the genie out of the bottle when it passed the Authorized Use of Military Force. He dissented with Scalia and Alito. To you it seems that Supreme Court decisions should be political ones--to Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts, their decisions should be about interpretation of the actual laws, and they can be nothing more.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-18481601691789896722007-11-26T10:33:00.000-07:002007-11-26T10:33:00.000-07:00James Taranto had some interesting commentary on t...James Taranto had some <A HREF="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010690" REL="nofollow">interesting commentary</A> on this issue after the Thomas book came out. The following is from that article:<BR/><BR/>"You are under no obligation to believe him or to disbelieve her. But no one has suggested that her charges were substantial enough to hold up in court, even civil court. To be sure, Senate confirmation is a political proceeding, not a judicial one, so that the standard is political: not reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence but merely whether enough senators can be induced to switch their vote. This standard is so low as to be almost subterranean, but Hill failed to meet even it. Her testimony changed at least three votes; she would have needed three more.<BR/><BR/>"Even by political standards, Justice Thomas was treated unjustly, for Hill's charges never should have seen the light of day under the procedures designed to protect nominees from unsubstantiated accusations."Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-91313967773224991472007-11-26T09:51:00.000-07:002007-11-26T09:51:00.000-07:00Richard,Stare decisis is a guide, not a rule. If y...Richard,<BR/><BR/>Stare decisis is a guide, not a rule. If you believe that we must always follow previous precedents, decisions could never be overturned such as when Brown v. Board of Education overturned <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy" REL="nofollow">Plessy</A>. Are you arguing that Brown was wrongly decided on the basis of stare decisis?Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-63656697810586697262007-11-26T08:54:00.000-07:002007-11-26T08:54:00.000-07:00Frank, in commenting on a previous post of yours I...Frank, in commenting on a previous post of yours I noted that Clarence Thomas does not believe in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis" REL="nofollow"><I>stare decisis</I></A>, the basis for almost every Supreme Court decision. That alone makes him incompetent to sit on the Supreme Court.<BR/><BR/>Let me also note that Thomas basically never saw the inside of a courtroom until 1990 when Bush 41 appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, probably the most important court in the country except for the Supreme Court. Then a year later, he was nominated to be a Supreme Court justice.<BR/><BR/>During his confirmation hearings, Thomas claimed: "As for the matter of my judicial philosophy, I didn’t have one—and didn’t want one." He refused to answer legal questions, even claiming that he not only had no views about <I>Roe v. Wade</I> but had never in his life discussed the case!<BR/><BR/>Thomas was the only justice that agreed with all arguments of the Bush administration in <I>Hamdi v. Rumsfeld</I>. In <I>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</I>, which held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions," Thomas dissented!<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Thomas voted to appoint George W. Bush as President of the United States, despite the fact that Bush's father appointed him to the Supreme Court. Can you say conflict of interest? <BR/><BR/>There's more, but I need to go back to work.<BR/><BR/>For another view of the Thomas book, see <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/11/12/071112crbo_books_toobin" REL="nofollow">Jeffrey Toobin's review</A> in The New Yorker.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I believe Anita Hill.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-44697722209753850012007-11-25T23:12:00.000-07:002007-11-25T23:12:00.000-07:00Frank,Did you see where Anita Hill said she stands...Frank,<BR/>Did you see where Anita Hill said she stands by her testimony in the hearings? She most certainly <I>is</I> refuting Thomas' portrayal of her in his book.<BR/><BR/>For the record, Frank, I would never say one person or the other is "100%" believable. But I have a hard time believing that she just made it all up. I haven't read the book, and have not done any extensive research. But from what I <I>have</I> read, I'm more inclined to believe Hill over Thomas. Apparently, you're of the impression that she's a bald faced liar. What exactly would her motive be for making up such tawdry tales?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-45151716849598992852007-11-25T20:50:00.000-07:002007-11-25T20:50:00.000-07:00Richard,So far your words against Clarence Thomas ...Richard,<BR/><BR/>So far your words against Clarence Thomas have been empty epithets. Would you care to use any evidence?<BR/><BR/>Jason,<BR/><BR/>Self pity? How would you feel if someone dragged your name through the dirt like Anita Hill and the Senate Judiciary liberals did to Clarence Thomas. He has every right to tell his story, because it happened to him. You would wish to tell your story as well. You say he's been no legal genius. Would you care to expound on that with examples?<BR/><BR/>Don,<BR/><BR/>I read Anita Hill's opinion piece. The main point of it is to say that we have come a long way toward reducing sexual harrassment in the workplace. In no way does she refute Thomas's disavowal of her assertions. In a clever slight of hand, all she does is to say that he has said incorrect things about her religion, work ethic, etc. She is a liar about Clarence Thomas supposed improprieties, and she knows it.<BR/><BR/>She is correct that it is not simply her word against his--it is her word against his and the FBI's, who investigated her claims and found them thoroughly without merit. How inconvenient that she does not name those who supposedly came forward after the hearings. By needing additional witnesses, whom she does not name, she inadvertently implies that she did not believe the testimony of the three who DID come forward during the hearings, whose testimony wasn't believable then anyway. <BR/><BR/>For the record, Don, are you saying that you believe Anita Hill 100% and not Clarence Thomas? Or is it somewhere in between?Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-13826207043414956972007-11-25T20:03:00.000-07:002007-11-25T20:03:00.000-07:00Not only will they not apologize, they'll keep doi...Not only will they not apologize, they'll keep doing it. Case in point: Miguel Estrada, and almost Janice Rogers Brown.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03558069223334537518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-2932239162523763822007-11-25T16:17:00.000-07:002007-11-25T16:17:00.000-07:00Glad to see you read the book. Very intriguing th...Glad to see you read the book. Very intriguing that you would get such an opposite "take away" from it than I did.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, won't be apologizing to Thomas anytime soon. He has been no legal genius, exactly, nor a saint. Even if he had, those hearings were far too long ago to justify the amount of whining he's still doing.<BR/><BR/>I don't admire such self pity.Jason Thehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15518866228386927143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-36681387311132645072007-11-25T12:32:00.000-07:002007-11-25T12:32:00.000-07:00Huh? I stand by my judgment that Clarence Thomas ...Huh? I stand by my judgment that Clarence Thomas is our least-qualified, least able Supreme Court justice.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.com