He had the right to remain silent

[Sue U]

I could be wrong; I don’t log everything. And when I do, I don’t always log it completely; sometimes I leave out dates and times, and sometimes even individuals. But anyway, I think I remember you saying once that Justice Clarence Thomas is an idiot, or something like that. Isn’t that disrespectful?

I dare you to show me any instance where I have ever said such a thing. The board has a search function, go ahead and use it. (You won't. You prefer to just make shit up rather than engage with reality.)

I do have lots of issues with Thomas as a Supreme Court justice, starting with the facts that he is a a reactionary right-wing activist who insists on applying the debunked theory of "originalism" in constitutional adjudication, that his Catholicism weighs heavily in his views of the law of secular government, that his acceptance of lavish gifts from billionaires creates not just an appearance of impropriety but a stench of corruption, that he is likely a misogynist creep (I believe Anita Hill), and that he has refused to recuse himself from the Jan.6 cases despite his wife's role in promoting the insurrection. His career before the Court was as a political functionary, with only a year and a half experience as a judge on the DC Circuit (which is where political functionaries are appointed to legitimize them as jurists before being nominated to the Supreme Court). When he writes separately (both in concurrence and dissent) he is frequently preoccupied with issues that are tangential to the fundamental questions of the case, trying to drive his own idiosyncratic view of the case or applicable process. I think his legal reasoning is poor because he so narrow in his views and so restricted by the backwards legal theories he has spent his career trying to justify. He is not a big thinker when it comes to the role of the law and the constitution, and he has a severe case of hubris.

[Scooter]

The village idiot has yet to learn that whenever he "remembers" something, it never happened.

[liberty]

I could be wrong; I don’t log everything. And when I do, I don’t always log it completely; sometimes I leave out dates and times, and sometimes even individuals. But anyway, I think I remember you saying once that Justice Clarence Thomas is an idiot, or something like that. Isn’t that disrespectful?

I dare you to show me any instance where I have ever said such a thing. The board has a search function, go ahead and use it. (You won't. You prefer to just make shit up rather than engage with reality.)

I do have lots of issues with Thomas as a Supreme Court justice, starting with the facts that he is a a reactionary right-wing activist who insists on applying the debunked theory of "originalism" in constitutional adjudication, that his Catholicism weighs heavily in his views of the law of secular government, that his acceptance of lavish gifts from billionaires creates not just an appearance of impropriety but a stench of corruption, that he is likely a misogynist creep (I believe Anita Hill), and that he has refused to recuse himself from the Jan.6 cases despite his wife's role in promoting the insurrection. His career before the Court was as a political functionary, with only a year and a half experience as a judge on the DC Circuit (which is where political functionaries are appointed to legitimize them as jurists before being nominated to the Supreme Court). When he writes separately (both in concurrence and dissent) he is frequently preoccupied with issues that are tangential to the fundamental questions of the case, trying to drive his own idiosyncratic view of the case or applicable process. I think his legal reasoning is poor because he so narrow in his views and so restricted by the backwards legal theories he has spent his career trying to justify. He is not a big thinker when it comes to the role of the law and the constitution, and he has a severe case of hubris.

It's possible I got you mixed up with someone else, and I've never had much luck with the search function on this forum, or any forum, for that matter.

Or it could be I'm just interpreting your attitudes and seeing insults where there may not be any. But I find it hard to believe that you haven't actually said to one of your friends in confidence that Thomas is an idiot and shouldn't be on the Court. However, I generally believe what people say if I feel they're trustworthy, so I accept what you say. I may be a fool for being that way, but that's just the way I am.

[Burning Petard]

Please have patience with our Mr. Liberty. "The village idiot has yet to learn that whenever he "remembers" something, it never happened" He shares many qualities with our noble and very intelligent President. After all who else could remember the airplanes in our American Revolutionary War?.

Perhaps that is what made it so revolutionary. But of course as our glorious leader has said so many times: Nobody knows it but. . . .

Of course also perhaps there is a reason nobody else knows it.

snailgate

[Big RR]

Honestly, I think it's the wrong thing to do. The right thing would be to suck it up, pay the fine, and go see the judge privately in chambers to offer an abject and unreserved personal apology.

I have to agree, especially if this guy is ever going to be litigating in the venue again. I'm sure a lot of judges other than the trial judge found this comment pretty disrespectful and outrageous, and his keeping it in the open does him (or his future clients) no favors, when they appear before those judges. And, come on, this is far worse than just calling the judge an idiot (which is bad enough).

I haven't done a lot of litigation (at least in courtroom litigation) in my career, but I have negotiated settlements (or participated in mediation, even court ordered mediation) of disputes. There are some people I preferred not to negotiate with (or mediators I would avoid), but the key is you do what you have to do to get the best resolution for your client under the circumstances, and calling the judge names (especially a name like this) never does that.

FWIW, I recall meeting with Sen Orrin Hatch on behalf of a client; I detested his policies but, for the sake of my client, I treated him with the respect his position deserved and we achieved what we wanted--FWIW, he was a gentleman as well. It goes with the territory.