There's no need for Supreme Court Jester Clarence Thomas to ask any questions. He's already made up his mind.

at the very least
judge thomas
has never been caught
using a penis enlarger
under his robe
during a trial.
we can all be thankful.

p.s. it's twuu! it's twuu!!!

The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was working at a conservative research group gathering résumés for appointments in a Bush administration but that she saw no conflict between her job and her husband's deliberations on a case that would decide the presidency.

A federal judge in Nashville said Justice Thomas faced a serious conflict of interest as a result of his wife's work for the Heritage Foundation.
The foundation has close ties to the Republican Party and influence in the hiring of key government officials for the then Gov. George W. Bush presidency.

A decision by Justice Thomas to recuse himself would have altered the outcome of the case before the court, whether to allow a manual recount of votes in Florida. Justice Thomas, who was in the majority.
If Thomas recused himself, it could have resulted in a 4-to-4 tie in the case , which would have allowed the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court to stand.

The federal appellate judge, Gilbert S. Merritt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, said he saw a serious conflict of interest for Justice Thomas in deciding a case that threw the election to Governor Bush.

Judge G.Merrit urged Justice Thomas to remove himself from the case in order to prevent any violation of a federal law " he cited Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, "Disqualification of Justices, Judges or Magistrates" " that requires court officers to excuse themselves if a spouse has "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.".

Mrs. Thomas said that her recruitment efforts requesting a history of applicants political activities were bipartisan and not on behalf of the Bush campaign.She acknowledged, however, that her search was likely to generate more interest among Republicans, because of the foundation's conservative orientation.

Clarence Thomas is one confused and conflicted clown. It has been noted by Toobin and others how Thomas harbors an irrational loathing for "elites" but always sides with the powerful against the meek and disenfranchised in his decisions.

Now Thomas, who almost never says anything during oral arguments, admonishes his colleagues because they actually have something to say.

The man exemplifies fortune cookie wisdom: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

The late, great Thurgood Marshall is spinning in his grave at the moronic rantings of Justice Clarence Nitwit. He is a disgrace to the bench. I don't agree with Scalia, either, but at least that man displays some occasional signs of great intellect. This guy just chimes in with occasional provocative rantings of little or no value to anyone on either side of his issue du jour....

Sounds like "The Nine" by Jeff Toobin has upstaged Thomas' recent book, and he's upset about it. Too bad. If Thomas can spill his beans all over the unsuspecting, others can as well.

Throw a bunch of conservatives together, shake for five minutes, and you end up with Glen Beck and a Molotov cocktail. Happens in "places of worship", government, and wherever conservative wingnuts hang out.

Thomas is to the Supreme Court as GW Bush is to the Presidency.

Hey Thomas, why do you hate liberty?

The L.A. Times reviewed the disclosures of all nine justices for the years 1998 through 2003.In that six-year period, Thomas accepted $42,200 in gifts, making him the TOP recipient BY FAR.Next in that period was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who accepted $5,825 in gifts, mostly small crystal figurines and other items.

Since joining the court, Thomas reported accepting gifts valued at $47,745. Some of the gifts he has accepted have come from casual acquaintances . More often, they came from new, conservative "FRIENDS".

Foremost among those conservative friends is Harlan Crow. The son of well-known Dallas real estate executive Trammell Crow, he runs a family holding company that owns 10% of Trammell Crow Co., one of the nation's biggest commercial real estate firms.

A big Republican donor, Crow gave $25,000 to help launch the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign deriding Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry.In 1997, Crow flew Thomas on his personal plane to the San Francisco area and sponsored him as his guest at the Bohemian Grove, a private organization that for more than 125 years has held all-male retreats in the redwoods of Northern California for government and business leaders.

Crow and his wife, Kathy, in 2001 also gave Thomas the Bible that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, valued at $19,000 .Crow also donated $175,000 for a new Clarence Thomas wing at the justice's childhood library in Pin Point, Ga.

At the time, Crow was a national board member of the Center for the Community Interest, a conservative advocacy group that filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court.Gillers, a NYU professor, questioned whether Thomas should have accepted anything from Crow.The federal rules say a judge "shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court,""If Harlan Crow is a member of the board of a group that files amicus briefs with the court, then I think he comes within that provision," Gillers said.

The publication facts behind Thomas's book ought to be discussed by all the candidates. He received an advance of $1.5 million in 2003 from HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.( yes FOX News) If you thought the Court dealt with any issues of relevance to Murdoch, you might call it a conflict of interest for Thomas to accept that payment--far more than any sitting justice ever received from any single source. You might call the $1.5 million a thank-you gift from Murdoch for services rendered. You might even wonder if it might be a subtle suggestion to other justices who will be ruling on Murdoch-related issues in the future.

you know, ever since the thomas confirmation hearings i just can't use a public restroom without thinking, "who has put pubic hair on my urinal?"

Does it seem strange (to any real thinkers out there) that after Clarence supposedly harassed Anita Hill, he was invited by Hill to give the keynote address at a sexual harassment seminar?

Then, she admittedly continued to stay friends with him, and call him for 3 years.

Either she lied for dems, or she is the dumbest victim in history.

Whenever Clarence Thomas speaks he expresses himself in an unnecessarily angry way. He reveals that he is clearly a damaged, bitter person. I question his ability to make judgments in a rational, non-emotional, manner.
I think he is a disaster on the bench.

Clarence Thomas is one of the great stories in US history; a young man raised harshly by his Grandfather who has risen from poverty to a Supreme Court Justice.

And the racist libs tried to derail his appointment & continue to this day to denigrate him.

If that's not telling, I don't know what is.

But the libs should not feel "so all alone:" LBJ would be slandering Thomas as well.

Thomas just does not fit the "Failed Society" mold.

Clarence Thomas, whose official role is to uphold the US Constitution, especially the 1st amendment of free speech, as well taking the liberty to write his own NYT best-selling memoire, suggests that his colleagues should just shut the hell up.
In other words, he's the proverbial pot.