Quantcast

Comments about ‘Clarence Thomas calls Supreme Court a 'marble palace'’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 18 2010 12:31 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
samhill

"SUN VALLEY, IDAHO – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the keynote address at the Utah State Bar's summer convention Saturday morning."

Can someone explain to me why, in a state that is constantly trying to ATTRACT convention business, the UTAH State Bar's convention was held in Sun Valley???

Dixie Dan

Amazing that attorneys would listen to Justice Thomas but some would refuse to let their children listen to the President of the United States. Such is life in Utah.

The Big One

samhill it is our tax money paying for it I'm surprised it wasn't in Tahiti

voluntaryist

Abolish government... completely!

Furry1993

To Dixie Dan | 1:00 p.m. July 17, 2010

***Amazing that attorneys would listen to Justice Thomas but some would refuse to let their children listen to the President of the United States. Such is life in Utah.***

Very true. Quite the skewed perspective.

tabuno

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' remarks sound awfully similar to President Obama's call for appointing a Justice who has empathy with the people whose Court's decision impacts. If Thomas were interested in isolating himself from on people, he would have decided to stay in the isolated halls of the Supreme Court. So what's the beef about with Republicans about appointing a judge who is interested in getting out in public and meeting the people, if Clarence Thomas seems to imply that he to is glad to get out from the marble halls of the Court?

John Charity Spring

All previous comments have focused on the minuscule tangentia of this event and have missed the real issue. The real issue is Thomas' complete failure to mention how judicial activism is ruining the Supreme Court.

Time and time again, the court has turned the Constitution on its head in order to legislate from the bench. The modern court has not hesitated to violate the separation of powers doctrine by ignoring the will of the people and creating new laws out of thin air. As just one example, this is how abortion was forced on the American people.

It is time for the court to cease judicial activism and instead, return to the role for which the Founding Fathers established it.

Jeppa

FYI, each attorney (or the attorney's employer) pays hundreds of dollars to attend the annual bar convention. No taxpayer funds are used for the event. The bar also has a large convention each year in St. George, Utah.

Pengwyn

The Utah State Bar is not funded by taxpayers. It is funded through the license fees of attorneys. The only taxpayer funds would be for government attorneys and judges whose travel is paid by their agency (not all of them are funded by the agency).

tabuno

Some would say the present conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has begun a new wave of judicial activism, so that those who are arguing for more restraint might by implication to calling for a return to the more modest approaches of middle of the road justices like the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Robert, along with Scalia, and Alito have begun to assert their personal policy preferences towards support of corporate business, national security, criminal punishment decisions.

Esquire

The court is an activist court, confounding the principles of the original intent crowd.

Bush v. Gore was a travesty. Florida should have been 100% recounted. Period. So, yes, it was political, and judicial rationalization won't change that.

Furry1993

To John Charity Spring | 6:31 p.m.

***The real issue is Thomas' complete failure to mention how judicial activism is ruining the Supreme Court.***

You're talking, of course, about decisions like the Citizens United case, when Thomas was an activist justice. You're right. That type of activism is inappropriate.


***. . . As just one example, this is how abortion was forced on the American people.***

I'm not aware that anyone in the United States was forced to have an abortion. The only thing the Court did was restore to women the right to determine whether to continue a pregnancy -- the same right that women had in Colonial times, when termination of pregnancy was not barred prior to quickening (which happened 4-5 months in gestation).


***It is time for the court to cease judicial activism and instead, return to the role for which the Founding Fathers established it.***

Agreed, and that means curtailing the influence of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Get the court back to the centrist position where it belongs, and away from the far right authoritarians who now who strongly influence it (and control it for the most part).

Furry1993

To tabuno | 12:51 a.m. July 18, 2010

***Some would say the present conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has begun a new wave of judicial activism, so that those who are arguing for more restraint might by implication to calling for a return to the more modest approaches of middle of the road justices like the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Robert, along with Scalia, and Alito have begun to assert their personal policy preferences towards support of corporate business, national security, criminal punishment decisions. ***

Very true, and exactly right. Get the court back to the centrist position where it was prior to the Court was skewed with the appointment of Roberts and Alito.

peter

You know, after reading this article, it said absolutely nothing.

kiaoraguy

If you've ever been to Sun Valley in the summer, you know why the bar and others go there- Ketchum is like Utah central all summer and one of the best places to unwind for a few days- a road trip and nice place at the end is always goo for the soul

ray vaughn

Clarence Thomas is pretty talkative for a justice who has not asked a question in cases heard before the court in years.

the truth

RE: Furry1993


NOT one of those cases mention showed judicial activism.

NOT ONE!


YOUR disagrrement with outcome is not proof of judiclai activism,


you must they step outside conttiutionution and purview of supreme court, to denstrate activism




Citizen united Case,
1st admendnent says: "Congress shall make no law ..., or abridging the freedom of speech..."

there are NO particulars attached to "freedomn of speech" other than congress shall not make laws abridging it.

PLaese explain allowing free speech is activism



Abortion right was forced on american people

abortion is not specificcal found in the constituion,

so by the 9th and 10th admendments it must be left up to states and the people to decide about it,

their ACTIVISM stepped on what is rightly the constitutional purview and responsiblity of the people and the states.



so you wrong,
and have FAILED MISERRABLY to demonstrate activism from the right.


your complaints are political, ideoligical, but not constitutional,


The LEFT has repeatedly shown their willingness to over step constituional bounds,

on speech, religion, privacy, private property, states right, and peoples rights,

based on simply they FEEL they know better, or federal governemnt should control all based on misguided notions of elitism.

tabuno

The difficulty in the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices is that it is likely impossible to appoint a justice without moral, worldview principles being part of the process and the nominee's personality. Unless America decides to replace humans with robots than there will always be political and ideological beliefs and reasons for the appointment of justices to this court. How the Constitution is interpreted is in itself a political decision, fraught with both liberal and consevative beliefs that even taken to the extreme will result in contradictions within individual decisions when there will be times that the same person will want local and state rights interpretation or at other times a federal authority interpretation in order to see their own beliefs about a particular law carried out or voided. Perhaps Americans would be better off to just acknowledge that interpreting the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder and their own ultimate belief in how they believe the court should rule and what they want the result to be.

fuziz

I attended his speech. I am not a big fan of his 'judicial philosohy' - I simply do not think it is a good policy, nor entirely possible, to strive to interpret our constitution according to 'original intent'(an approach I've always found to be ironic coming from a black guy).
However, I did enjoy Justice Thomas's speech. I found him to be witty, articulate, and friendly. He stressed that there are not political divisions among the justices. He seems to have a genuine affinity for every justice with whom he has worked, even those with whom he has disagreed. He understands that everyone on the Court is looking for the right decision, but they are different, intelligent, people, who often see different solutions to a problem. That is how the Court should be, and the elected branches could use more of it. Government should not be war among political parties. It should be a place where our representatives look for solutions to our problems. The discourse in this country needs to be more civil, and I thought Justice Thomas's speech provided an excellent lesson in that.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments