Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« This is SERIOUS professionalism | Main | Chaska, Minn. Chief of Police signs on with Mayors »

NY Times on Justice Thomas

Posted by David Hardy · 3 June 2007 11:35 AM

Not to say it's a tiny bit slanted, but the title tells you all you need to know: "The Next Big Thing in Law? The Harsh Jurisprudence of Justice Thomas".

Although Thomas himself has explained his silence in oral arguments (he grew up speaking Gullah, and the transition made him shy about speaking) the article says that people speculate that it's because "he is afraid that if he speaks he will reveal his ignorance about the case; he is so ideologically driven that he invariably comes with his mind made up; or he has contempt for the process."

He "regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering." "He appears poised in the next few weeks to achieve his longstanding goal: dismantling the integrationist vision of his predecessor Thurgood Marshall."

He started out rather liberal, but then sold out: "But as he accepted jobs from Republicans eager to hire a conservative black lawyer, he shifted rightward." He is always "quick to reach a harsh result."

[via Prof. Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy]

· media

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Bill | June 3, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply

Geez, why do you even torture yourself by reading the New York Slimes? All The News That's Printed to Fit.

It's just sick how the media expect judges to rule for "the little guy" or in favor of people who are "suffering", regardless of what the actual law or Constitution says. They can't seem to get the point that making policy decisions is the job of the legislature, and the judiciary's job is to interpet the law as written, not to re-write the law into some vision of what society (or the judge) wants it to be.

Some recommended (better) reading:

I just finished "Scalia Dissents" - enjoyable all the way through. Scalia's opinions are always a hoot to read.

I'm in the middle of "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork. He pulls no punches in this one - as if he ever does in any of his books.

Gregory Creswell | June 6, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply

LONG LIVE U.S.S.C. Justice Clarence Thomas.

Kevin Baker | June 9, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply

I've read a number of dissents authored by Thomas, and it seems to me that he is the Justice most in touch with the original meaning of the Constitution - even moreso than Scalia. It was a good day when he was confirmed.

Tom | June 9, 2007 11:44 PM | Reply

Wah wah! Any justice who doesn't keep up with what the "living Constitution" says, as provided by the Slimes' editorial page that morning, is a "heartless radical".

Too bad Stephens, or, better yet, Souter, couldn't have had an aneurysm about a year ago, then we really could have given the Times something to cry about!

Leave a comment