On the one hand, you say:
On the other hand, you say:
Point is, just calling someone a "stooge" or "hack" without any concrete and reasonable evidence (and despite what I pointed out above explaining how Thomas
isn't Scalia's "stooge"
here and
here) is something "any dullard on the street" could say.
I actually had quite a long reply that I posted Monday. Somehow I screwed up and it's not on here. Regardless, I'm not going to redo the whole thing. It was all I could do to take the time to respond to your Thomas defense with several paragraphs of my own, but I'll do a quick summary in a sec.
This is an Internet physician forum, not a second year university poli-sci course. I like to give opinion and move on. You have the option of researching and writing long position essays. There's nothing wrong with that. If I'm interested, I'll read it. I'd be lying if I said I'm deeply interested in the subject, but it was a good learning experience.
And I won't argue that I've said anything that a dullard couldn't say. I just express my opinions, most of which I think are pretty well reasoned and come with a decent grasp of modern and historical politics as well as history in general. I lean left for sure, and while this colors my interpretation of things, I know/believe that I'm more open minded than most of the liberals OR conservatives that I speak with. There are lots of hacks/stooges on both sides. Although I do strongly believe FOX news is the most stooge saturated news organization currently available.
As far as CT goes, I don't remember exactly what I wrote before, but I know a couple things I included. And I have to say, after my reading I was even MORE convinced that he's not good.
His non-contribution to oral arguments. Sad. This is a chance for justices to clarify and debate their positions. The reasons he doesn't contribute are nonsense in my opinion. Whether they did it historically is irrelevant, partly because briefs weren't given to justices before the arguments in the past. Now they get them in advance and can research the arguments and ask questions and debate. It's clearly an important component. CT has nothing to offer.
We disagree on him being in the top 99.9% just because he's a SCOTUS justice. His intellect/contributions don't impress me. I know he's smart, he finished Yale law school, albeit in the middle of his class. So yeah, he's not a dummy or anything.
I don't think I said that there's a correlation between between justice greatness and questions asked at oral arguments. If I did, I misspoke, and you should have dropped it from then on because no person worth talking to would say that. I do agree that I said Scalia is overrated. He was an ideologue and a hypocrite. He said some ridiculous things. He was pretty nimble at discussing constitutional law though, whether I agreed with him or not.
Other than Marshall, I don't know anything about those guys. My guess is if I did, I would think they're more impressive than CT.
His writings. Some are stupid. The stuff about the NBA being an example of prejudicial hiring going both ways. The stuff about the government not being responsible for legislating dignity, because, hey, even some slaves and Japanese interns were dignified. The BS about his favorite NFLer which he went on and on about in a COURT DECISION. The argument that the constitution should be so easily and stupidly dismissed in lieu of state decisions. He's not an impressive mind to me.
The more I read, the more I disagree with the idea that he's a great intellect. I WILL admit that he wasn't a stooge of Scalia. I think even Scalia probably thought he was often boneheaded and too far to the right. I think he's a hack.
As far as Trump goes, you have the right to believe he has offered well-reasoned policy/plan details that require some political or intellectual acumen. I disagree. Quite a bit. I think his speeches and interviews are idiotic, with few exceptions. I don't feel like offering any further explanation.
