Normally I would try not to link to something this silly, but I think this may actually be a joke and you’re all talking about it in the comments anyway:
(Clarence) Thomas should leave his perch at 1 First Street — and head for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
[…..]Thomas is well suited for political office. On the nation’s highest court, he has had to reflect and rule on the country’s most divisive issues. He also has political experience predating the court. He worked as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and then for the Reagan administration in the Department of Education and as head of the EEOC.
And it’s clear that Thomas prefers the open road over cloistered chambers. During the court’s summer recesses, he enjoys driving around the country in his motor home, parking at Wal-Marts and seeing “a part of real America,” as his wife put it in an interview with WNYC’s “The Takeaway.” Thomas says he loves it because it “gets you out among your fellow citizens.” The justice could spend the next two years in his RV, simply adding a sign to its side: “Vote Clarence Thomas!”
I’d like to think my “are there any judges you would like to have a beer with” question was the inspiration for this.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Yeah, it’s nuts. Clarence Thomas is not going to willingly retire while there is a Democrat in the White House. So the two dopes who wrote this can give it up.
Shalimar
That would be awesome. Not only would we have our first presidential candidate in history who refused to campaign (or speak in public for that matter), but we also wouldn’t have Thomas on the court any longer. Win-win.
mistermix
That piece is the political equivalent of Harry Potter fan fiction.
dmsilev
That was quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve read all month. And given that Jonah Goldberg has a column in my local paper, the competition is quite fierce.
dms
Ash Can
I call spoof too. That whole thing is hilarious, and has “We Dreamed This Column Up Early This Morning While We Were Still Drunk From Last Night” written all over it. Kudos to those guys.
scav
But can he emote appropriately?
note: knowledge of wal-mart parking lots as a future criteria for presidency and certificate of authenticity. Either that or he confuses it with going to the zoo in his spare time. “See REAL ‘mercans in their NATIVE habitat!”
Jeffro
I think the writers had a minor stroke of genius: tweaking Thomas (for not making a comment/contribution IN FOUR YEARS) by throwing out the (clearly ludicrous) idea that Thomas could run for president. “He’s so stupid, he should run for an office that he’s just about the least qualified person in the country to hold. Because he’s stupid.” Never hurts to remind the country what Republican rule can lead to.
Also, they worked in a mention of Thomas’ wife’s Tea Party ties, and that is something worth getting out there one (hundred) more time(s).
Quiddity
I’m all for Thomas running. What’s not to like?
SiubhanDuinne
Cross-posted from the Hoocoodanode thread:
Best line from that whole op-ed? This:
Come for the rape, stay for the courtroom speech.
Nylund
This is the guy who hasn’t asked a question, or made a comment, or written a decision in how long? Ever since the GOP got this guy on the court, he basically sits there, says, does, and writes nothing, then votes the party line. I can see why that makes him the perfect Republican. Do not think or do anything, just toe the line.
Ross Hershberger
4 years and 250 cases, according to the article. Seriously. Is he even curious? Paying attention?
Punchy
“Real Americans”, apparently, are low-brow white trash fat fucks unconcerned with local, small-biz successes looking to save 5 fucking cents on a plasma TV and single-handedly just chucking ducats to China.
JAHILL10
@SiubhanDuinne:
Dude, you win the thread!
Bella Q
Well, these guys are from “a legal tabloid,” http://abovethelaw.com/ and it is more satire than serious. But the comments to it there are raucous.
Ross Hershberger
Thomas clerks probably already have the Rand oeuvre memorized by high school.
Maybe the GOP needs to bring him in for service and replace the string that works the mouth. It would make him more lifelike.
wengler
Everytime I see Uncle Ruckus in The Boondocks, I think of Clarence Thomas.
frankdawg
@Shalimar:
I was going to say the same thing – anything that would get Uncle Thomas off the USSC would be a huge win. The fact that he would lose the race for office would just be icing on the cake.
Honus
@Ross Hershberger: No doubt, since he and Scalia are well-known to select their clerks from the pin heads in the Federalist Society.
I hope the article was satire because I’m having a difficulty imaging how Thomas would be dealing with the Gulf oil spill, the recession and the financial meltdown. His lack of intellectual curiosity makes GWB look like a policy wonk.
But hey, he’s a minority who might win an election for the Rs. So what if it would be a disaster for the country.
FlipYrWhig
Good thing the question wasn’t “are there any judges you would like to have a Coke with.”
jimBOB
It’s not true that he hasn’t written opinions (unfortunately) – see here.
Sheila
Well-suited for political office? Only if Scalia is his chief aide, as how else would he know what to say and do? However, the previous accusations of sexual harrassment does qualify him for brotherhood in the US Congress.
CynDee
I’ve been wanting to say this for a long time: Clarence Thomas has shown himself to be a misogynistic, nay, misanthropic, first-class creep who resents everything and everyone, appreciates nothing, and contributes nothing. The highest court of the land and people of the United States deserve better.
KG
@Nylund: Thomas has authored 9 opinions in 2009 and 2010 (only 1 thus far in 2010). He’s had 10 concurring opinions this term as well. He’s had 3 dissents this term; and two cases this year where he’s concurred in part and dissented in part. The decision of who gets to write the opinion goes to the highest ranking member of the majority (Thomas is 4th in seniority behind Roberts, Stevens, and Scalia).
As for not asking questions, I really don’t get this criticism. Not all judges pepper attorneys with questions. Some let the attorneys actually present their arguments, which is what Thomas does. In fact, appellate judges asking a lot of questions, historically speaking, is a relatively recent development. I’ve actually had appellate cases that I’ve argued where I received no questions. An appellate judge’s job is to hear the arguments, read the briefs, and write an opinion… some find asking questions to be helpful, others don’t.
Personally, I like Thomas’ jurisprudence. It’s not great, but its also not terrible. And for the record, he’s about a zillion times better than Scalia. Thomas’ jurisprudence is fairly stable and he seems less interested in the outcome politically. Scalia, on the other hand, clearly considers the political outcome and then chooses his jurisprudence accordingly.
CynDee
@KG: Thank you for your knowledgeable and reasoned remarks. You have improved my perspective and prompted me to pay more attention to the work of the court.
Bella Q
@KG:
While Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence may not be as obviously goal oriented as that of Justice Scalia, I wouldn’t quite call it good. Though you did call it not terrible, so I suspect we do not entirely disagree. And there is not question that Scalia picks the political outcome and then writes from there, which from my view, is the wrong approach.
As for appellate questions, I’m all for judges letting counsel present the arguments, though I confess that those arguments with questions are usually more fun to make. Many of my appellate appearances have been routine enough to be submitted without argument, “unless the panel has questions,” which sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, at both the state and federal appellate circuit level. But in the US Supreme Court, I believe a case should have enough novelty or complexity to the issues that questions from the bench would be necessary. Otherwise, cert was granted, why? So Justice Thomas’s silence through so many arguments suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity to me, or a less than subtle lack of interest in his job.
Woodrowfan
“better than Scalia” is sort of a low hurdle. it’s sort of like “thinner than Taft.”
Tonybrown74
I see … they want Clarence Thomas to be their new Republican Obama.
These people are so silly. And sad.
And it goes to show how few black Republicans there are for them to chose from on the national stage, not to mention the blatant racial politics the think they need to negate their racist dog whistles.
Remember. Most people only voted for Obama because he was black, after all.
(the last line was snark)
Calming Influence
“Hey look! Is this a pubic hair on my can of beer?”
BC
Man, this is like the Illinois Senate campaign in 2004, where the Republicans imported Alan Keyes to run against Obama. Or 2009, when they elect an African-American as RNC chairman. So now they are looking for other African-Americans to counter him in 2012? It’s amazing to me that when they look at Obama, all they see is the color of his skin and think that is what makes him successful. To be a Republican must mean that you fill your brain with stereotypes of all your fellow citizens, reality be damned.
Nazgul35
I think it stems from “which AA Republican do we have that can take on that AA President?”
Since Colin Powell is too suspect and Steele is incompetent…Thomas is about all they have left.
merl
he’d be the first repub to lose the south in a long time. i’d like to see him campaigning in mississippi with his white wife
Anne Laurie
The satire is broad enough (RV camping at Walmarts? Forcing clerks to watch The Fountainhead?) that I hope the writers were in on the joke. The pinheads at the WaPo responsible for printing it, however — hey, Ginni throws fantastic cocktail parties on the Heritage Foundation’s dime! “Electing” her and Uncle Clarence to the White House would make DC fun again!
Glen Tomkins
I don’t know about sharing a beer
But you definitely don’t want to share a Pepsi with the guy.
Socrates
“Personally, I like Thomas’ jurisprudence. It’s not great, but its also not terrible. And for the record, he’s about a zillion times better than Scalia. Thomas’ jurisprudence is fairly stable and he seems less interested in the outcome politically. Scalia, on the other hand, clearly considers the political outcome and then chooses his jurisprudence accordingly.”
I’m confused. Thomas is a “zillion times better” than the reptilian Scalia, yet they vote the same on every decision.
Huh?
Cathie from Canada
Every presidential election in the United States kicks off by reporters and pundits creating and puffing up all sorts of totally useless pseudo candidates — I guess it gives them something to write about. Last time, remember Fred Thompson, apparently considered to be Mr. Sexy by the White House press corp and Mr. Whosis? by everybody else? So this time, we have Clarence Thomas, a total nonentity politically with no base, no skills, no capacity to organize…. what a candidate!
liberal
@Socrates:
I think the commenter is a lawyer and is speaking about what Thomas and Scalia actually write in their decisions. The idea being that even if they get to the same place, Scalia decides where he wants to go and twists his jurisprudence in order to do so. The commenter is claiming that Thomas doesn’t do nearly as much twisting.
Socrates
@liberal
@liberal:
Yes, I think you’re right about the original comment.
But I guess my point is that, how can it possibly matter what the various justifications are, if, in the end, Scalia and Thomas always vote the same way?
Result is exactly the same, so how can one guy be a zillion times better?
(Or any better at all, in my opinion.)