Opinion of Clarence Thomas when it comes to racial constitutional issues.

[lfromnj]

You can call him a party hack but in reality Thomas on racial issues is a very interesting and unique justice.  Especially when it comes to the VRA districts he has the least partisan decision making and a good idea on how it should be applied.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Was Scalia the one who wrote that he desperately wished bans on flag desecration were constitutional, but it just wasn't so?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Was Scalia the one who wrote that he desperately wished bans on flag desecration were constitutional, but it just wasn't so?

I didn't read his Texas v. Johnson decision but he was the only conservative to rule in the majority on that one so it's possible.

[Kingpoleon]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Alito’s dissent against the Westboro Baptist Church was probably the most interesting in a 8-1 case I’ve ever read.

[Skill and Chance]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Well, Gorsuch has matched or exceeded Scalia in his commitment to free expression.  The problem is he is kind of stranded now because Barrett and especially Kavanaugh are much more deferential to the government than RBG and Kennedy were.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Well, Gorsuch has matched or exceeded Scalia in his commitment to free expression.  The problem is he is kind of stranded now because Barrett and especially Kavanaugh are much more deferential to the government than RBG and Kennedy were.

I'm pretty sure if something like Texas v. Johnson came before the Court today, at least one of those as well would rule for flag burners. Roberts probably would too (he strikes me as someone who may not have back in 1989 when those laws were widespread and universal but after now after 30 years wouldn't consider the issue worth revisiting.)

[Skill and Chance]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Well, Gorsuch has matched or exceeded Scalia in his commitment to free expression.  The problem is he is kind of stranded now because Barrett and especially Kavanaugh are much more deferential to the government than RBG and Kennedy were.

I'm pretty sure if something like Texas v. Johnson came before the Court today, at least one of those as well would rule for flag burners. Roberts probably would too (he strikes me as someone who may not have back in 1989 when those laws were widespread and universal but after now after 30 years wouldn't consider the issue worth revisiting.)

Yes, but that would be because of how strongly Roberts and Kavanaugh feel about upholding precedent (and maybe Barrett too).  If the state laws were still in effect today, in all likelihood it would be 5/4 to uphold them, with Gorsuch and the liberals dissenting.

[MarkD]

You can call him a party hack but in reality Thomas on racial issues is a very interesting and unique justice.  Especially when it comes to the VRA districts he has the least partisan decision making and a good idea on how it should be applied.

1) I will always call Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and William Rehnquist "party hacks" for what they did in Bush v. Gore.

2) I'm far from clear what you mean about Thomas's views on VRA districts. Do you mean to refer to Thomas's view on how the VRA should be interpreted, or on his Equal Protection Clause interpretation as applied to minority-majority districts that were drawn during 1991-1992? Regarding the latter issue, ever since the 1990s, when I read Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson, I have been certain that Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, O'Connor, and Rehqnuist were quite wrong and the opinions were completely unpersuasive. It was ridiculously unpersuasive that they would look at congressional districts like NC-12 and GA-11 (as drawn in 1991-1992) and claim that districts like those were more similar to the municipal boundary lines of Tuskegee, Alabama -- as drawn in 1957 -- which the Supreme Court had found to be unconstitutional in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, than to the boundaries of certain New York state legislative districts that the Court found to be constitutionally permissible in United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg v. Carey. The Shaw and Miller opinions repeatedly referred to racially "segregated" districts, when in fact there were no 100% white districts or 100% black districts in either North Carolina or Georgia. There were no laws that prohibited whites from moving into the black-majority districts or prohibit blacks from moving into the white-majority districts. So there was no "segregation" of voters. Also, the Court's opinions never explained who was being treated worse than whom else, or who was being harmed.

In sum, I agree with Clarence Thomas's views on affirmative action, in educational opportunities and employment opportunities, being unconstitutional, but I disagree with him about whether racial gerrymandering -- such as in NC-12, GA-11, LA-4, TX-30, and FL-03, as those districts had been drawn in 1991-1992 -- also being unconstitutional. So I can't say either FF or HP.

[politicallefty]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Was Scalia the one who wrote that he desperately wished bans on flag desecration were constitutional, but it just wasn't so?

I didn't read his Texas v. Johnson decision but he was the only conservative to rule in the majority on that one so it's possible.

Scalia was far better on free speech than Thomas. Scalia's majority opinion in Brown v. EMA is an enjoyable read and absolutely correct. Thomas does not believe that the First Amendment applies to minors, although I fail to see how that was relevant to that case. If there's one place where Thomas ranks well, I think it's when it comes to indecent speech. He's already stated before that he wants to revisit and overturn FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.

If the current Court weren't so lopsided, I would've like to have seen a new obscenity case reach the Court. I'm very pessimistic when it comes to Barrett. I think the Court needs to reexamine what it deems to be obscene speech and include more under the protections of the First Amendment.

Well, Gorsuch has matched or exceeded Scalia in his commitment to free expression.  The problem is he is kind of stranded now because Barrett and especially Kavanaugh are much more deferential to the government than RBG and Kennedy were.

Gorsuch is definitely one of the more interesting Justices on the Court right now, but I agree with you that his idiosyncratic influence has been dealt a serious blow with Barrett now replacing RBG. I think he would've joined the majority in both Texas v. Johnson and Brown v. EMA.

[Kingpoleon]

I will always call Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and William Rehnquist "party hacks" for what they did in Bush v. Gore.

I know we’re not supposed to say anything, but I find it hard to believe that Thomas is less of a hack than any Justice considering his wife’s birtherism and conspiracy theories.

Gorsuch is definitely one of the more interesting Justices on the Court right now, but I agree with you that his idiosyncratic influence has been dealt a serious blow with Barrett now replacing RBG. I think he would've joined the majority in both Texas v. Johnson and Brown v. EMA.

If he wins over Barrett and Kavanaugh, though - which is possible - he could become the most influential Justice on the Court.

[mikhaela]

He is the best Justice on the court atm.

[Skill and Chance]

I will always call Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and William Rehnquist "party hacks" for what they did in Bush v. Gore.

I know we’re not supposed to say anything, but I find it hard to believe that Thomas is less of a hack than any Justice considering his wife’s birtherism and conspiracy theories.

Gorsuch is definitely one of the more interesting Justices on the Court right now, but I agree with you that his idiosyncratic influence has been dealt a serious blow with Barrett now replacing RBG. I think he would've joined the majority in both Texas v. Johnson and Brown v. EMA.

If he wins over Barrett and Kavanaugh, though - which is possible - he could become the most influential Justice on the Court.

 
If anything, it's Roberts who seems to be winning over Kavanaugh.

[cwh2018]

Roberts took 12 clerks from Kavanaugh's chambers in 12 years and Kavanaugh and while I believe said is a textualist and originalist has very closely matched Roberts in his first 2 terms on the court.

The flag burning case would probably be a 8-1 or 9-0 decision if it were held today, with Alito probably the only no vote and maybe Thomas.

[Kingpoleon]

If anything, it's Roberts who seems to be winning over Kavanaugh.

For now? Maybe. However, Roberts has a VERY high view of precedent & deference which is unlikely to be fully adopted by any other Justice.

[I’m not Stu]

Thomas is the worst. He openly called for Batson v. Kentucky to be overturned. Kavanaugh is a staunch supporter of that precedent that protects defendants from racial discrimination.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Obvious HP although it's true that he does occasionally make some interesting decisions (although not always good.) The best I can say for him is that he's sometimes pretty good on free speech and the First Amendment, moreso when his buddy Scalia was around because Scalia was actually pretty strong on that in general, which elevates him a bit over Alito, by far the worst Justice.

Was Scalia the one who wrote that he desperately wished bans on flag desecration were constitutional, but it just wasn't so?

I didn't read his Texas v. Johnson decision but he was the only conservative to rule in the majority on that one so it's possible.

Brennan wrote the opinion, Scalia joined it. The concurrence in question was from Anthony Kennedy, who also joined Brennan.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

HP

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He was put there on Thurgood Marshall seat and he is against the same reparations that got him there on SCOTUS. That's why we never hear him talk in Crt, he only take notes

[juulze68]

He’s okay. I don’t really have a strong opinion on Justices as long as they don’t twist the law to benefit their opinion.