You raise an interesting point. Should stability have been invoked when Dred Scott was overturned?

At what point is it proper to reverse prior rulings? How is one to determine it? Who should determine it?

As I see it there is only one constant in Supreme Court rulings. They always side with the argument that reaffirms the power of the courts. You can trace this back to Marberry vs. Madison.

The court's record on increasing the power and liberty of the common man has been much more spotty. Look at the long string of rulings against unions for much of the 20th Century. Social progress seems to happen in spurts. Every generation or so a truly inspired justice gets on the bench and moves the cause of real democracy forward. Between these moments the court serves to preserve the status quo and favor the rich and powerful.

I don't see where more probing senate hearings will make any difference. Anyone who didn't realize what sort of justices Alioto and Roberts were going to be was either ignorant or fooling themselves. Hearings are pro forma because the nominations are based exactly on the person's political philosophy. Whenever someone turns out not to fit the role expected of him, he is considered a traitor to his party.

I'd like to hear some practical suggestions on how this could be remedied. I don't think any will be forthcoming.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

As Arlen Specter is fond of saying, nominees will say just enough to get confirmed. Currently, that is very little. The Senators do not require meaningful answers, so the nominees, who are very intelligent and well-coached in this dark art, don’t give them. It’s very disappointing.

More than disappointing, it basically bankrupts the entire process.

Until the Sen's start voting against, on the basis that the candidate said absolutely nothing, it will never change.

[edit] To add, and that goes for both parties, because if and when the Dems take the White House, I expect the same crap from their nominees.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I don't think it's self aggrandizement, more like protection of their turf. A typical example is when congress passes some bill that contains a provision prohibiting judicial review. This always gets a rough treatment.

As for judicial "activism", I didn't claim that. Each side calls it activism when they don't like the way a ruling turns out. I'm talking about rulings which favor people rather than institutions. An example of that is the string of decisions giving first amendment protections to corporations and granting them personhood. Pretty amazing reading of the constitution given that corporations weren't even in existence in the US when the constitution was written. (Firms like the British East India Company were not organized along the same lines as modern corporations.)

What makes Thomas such an interesting case his is disdain for anyone having to do with the type of environment he, himself, grew up in. Some psychologist could have a field day with his behavior.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I think you meant australopithecine, which sounds like a racial slur to me. This doesn't improve the tone of the discussion, shame on you.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

There really is only one problem with Clarence Thomas and it is the same problem as when he was first appointed: he is unqualified for the office and unfit to serve. Thomas was a judge for, I believe, less than 2 years. His legal career was certainly not stellar. He just wasn't and still isn't SCOTUS material.

He is the perfect illustration of how insane the Republican Party has become. They have nothing but contempt for our system of government and all of the marvelous means and methods that have been used for centuries to maintain it and it's integrity. They don't even pretend to be looking for people who will serve justice or be exemplary judges anymore. They simply go for whichever ideologue is youngest and most confirmable at the time of an opening. That was what Nixon did when he started this whole trend with Rhenquist. They have done incalculable damage to our nation these past 30+ years and may have even undone us with their extremist political bullshit. It's very sad.

Thomas' appointment was a reaction to way that the Robert Bork confirmation hearings played out.  Maybe the lesson from this is to be careful what you wish for; it may come true.

You defame Goldwater by implying he was a racist, but facts strongly indicate the opposite. When Goldwater managed the family's Arizona department store business, it was the first Arizona department store retailer to promote and hire black employees to fill positions where they directly interacted with the public, as salespersons and cashiers. The stores were also considered to be at that time the most generous in the state with compensation packages, including profit sharing and health insurance, yet he is often depicted as an enemy of labor for his lack of affection towards big organised labor unions. Goldwater believed in taking personal responsibilities for his actions. To him the concept was not just a relativist ploy enabling the public castigation of single mothers.

Goldwater was not one to speak out of the corners of his mouth. He did not disguise intents within codewords or catch phrases. It's true that his very strong beliefs about limiting the reach of the federal government into private lives was embraced by many southern racists, because they saw it as a method to continue the hateful ways.

One of Goldwater's primary points of opposition to Johnson's Great Society is one that eventually worked it way up into mainstream thought, and that is the idea that non-conditional welfare entitlements were disincentives, and would trap succeeding generations of poor in the lower class. There is a great deal of substance to another of his thrusts; that coercing non-racist private behavior would not change anybody, and would instead drive persons motivated by prejudices into dark rooms and back alleyways, away from the free-marketplace of ideas, where the evil could be defeated. My belief is that he was wrong primarily for two reasons; racism was and is of such pervasiveness in America, that some governmental intervention is indicated as a prescription to cure the ailment; and that the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment clearly extended the Federal Government's reach into state actions, but I am exceedingly liberal when it comes to extending liberties to all humans, and I firmly believe in substantive due process that incorporates the whole bill of rights to act as a bar against individeual actions of the state.

You do the man a great disservice by not understanding what motivated him, and by using referents of reprehensible contemporary conservatism to judge him with. He was old school conservative, and in his post senate life was considered to be a pariah to the GOP for his vehement oppostion to the religious right, and his embrace of and active support for gay rights in America, often stating loudly and clearly that religious fervency and homophobia were antithetical to real conservatives, as well as working against the advancement of liberty and justice for all.

It is also of note that Goldwater's withdrawal of support for Nixon might have been the act that precipitated his resignation. It is not proper to cloud the rectitude of a person's intents, simply because you disagree with their politics.

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

Barry Goldwater

There is no doubt in my mind that if he were still alive, Goldwater would be a vociferous dissenter to the policies of our current executive either. Mr. Bush can hardly be called a friend or a defender of liberty.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."

Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican National Convention, 1964

1. Senators should refuse to confirm anyone who won't explain their judicial philosophy in great detail, including discussing important past Supreme Court decisions. Anyone who says s/he doesn't have an opinion on seminal S. Ct cases is lying.

2. They should only confirm judicial minimalists, whether on the left or right.

3. If a justice misrepresents her/his judicial philosophy to the Senate, that justice should be impeached.

Goldwater did not legitimize racism, racists distorted an honourable man's beliefs in the goodness of self-determination and liberty to fit into their plans. Goldwater was miffed and uncomfortable with the support he'd garnered from the Dixiecrats in '64, whereas Nixon leveraged it into an act of abominable rapacity against the Party of Lincoln, and because of that, Nixon was the event horizon for the RNC, that never looked back as it began to get pulled into the well of relativism.

I grew up around Republicans, and I watched without understanding the split and battles between the few that truly believed in liberty and the preeminence of the individual, the hateful Bircher types, and the ends-testers. The ends-testers aligned with the Birchers, and the one true believers got left in the dust. My father is still alive, and cannot even begin to fathom what drives my opposition to the Republican Party, but query him individually regarding the majority of Republican policies, along with the majority of Republican federal politicians, and he will state his distaste for them. He just cannot grasp the whole picture, and understand the pervasiveness of evil that has infected the party.

Let me ask you directly; do you believe the Great Society helped America's poor, or did it actually work counter productively, trapping generations of poor within class boundaries? Been to Bed-Sty recently? I am a child of the west, who believes that when the vicissitudes of life knocks a human down to the ground, you given them a hand-up, and if they are in severe need, you give a stake, but you don't set them up on the dole. unless you are prepared to continue doling it out in perpetuity, unless you are prepared to personally vouch for their every little need.

Do you believe that the government is capable of dictating personal morality? Even if it is capable, why the hell would you cede that power over to one of the most immoral identifiable groups in society, politicians?

The Republican Party is controlled by greedheads, hatebreeders and liars, who are pocketed as cronies by corporations. it is run by people who mouth the words and pose as conservatives, but who do not accept the responsibilities that flow as effect from their actions. There are still many core conservative principles that have value, if they were truly embraced.

As to the militarism allegation, let me ask you, which party dropped the atom bomb? Which party cut-up Europe with Joseph Stalin? Which party set-up the CIA? Which Party clubbed my sisters and bros protesting the Vietnam War in Chicago, 1968? The mote friend; better go to the mirror...

I agree with your general point here, there's not enough we can do to ensure social progress through the Court.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I've always wondered about the Dred Scott decision. Does that case reveal the racism of that Supreme Court or expose a glaring injustice in the Constitution (before the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments)?

Fact is, slaves were not citizens, but property, and any human rights denied to them were not rights that were protected in the Constitution before the Civil War.

So is Dred Scott a problem of the Court or the Constitution?

Re: You raise an interesting point. Should stability have been invoked when Dred Scott was overturned?

Dred Scott was never overturned. It was rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

Re: Does that case reveal the racism of that Supreme Court or expose a glaring injustice in the Constitution

Um, tack an "-ed" on "reveal". The justices who decided Dred Scott are long, long dead and it's not a comment on anyone now living. My own opinion to your question (set in the past) is "Both". The justices on the counrt were racists (just about everyone in that day was, even many abolitionists) and they were only too happy to decide as they did. But the Constitution as then written also gave no real reason for hope to the anti-slavery forces.

John, my last reply was intense, wasn't it? Thanks for not taking it too personally. If you think I was passionate here, you'd be amused at the heat I desire to throw at theocons who wrap themselves in Goldwater's memory. You proffer valid arguments, they engage in antinomianism. I've probed a bit, and found a few cracks, and wait for the proper opportunities for laying down some good riffs. Again, presently spread too thin and wrapped too tightly. How hard can I tune the snare head down before the skin breaks? Here's an allusion intuition says you'll understand. Here's a chart to a loop of turmoil you should get too:
antiwar->duty-bound '69 lottery winner->chopper doc->antiwar

I glad to hear you get to Bed Stuy. A few years ago, I was talking to a lifer NYC'er who informed me that the village had become a wasteland for the starving, Bed Stuy was were art's phoenix was now rising. Hopefully, that's a reason you visit there. Here's condensed context for the ref: my one visit to NYC of significant duration was a long time ago, early in my aimless phase. The first traveling band had broken up, and I'd been adopted into a loft, where freelance jamming was an almost everlasting event. Some friends I'd met there piled me into their car, and took me up to play at a sort of analog in Bed Stuy one afternoon. I'll never forget the exteriority of bleakness, or the open acceptance to a stranger jamming overnight. When I returned to the loft the next morning and talked about the experience, the fear of Bed Stuy from many was palpable.

It was my upbringing by staunchly Republican parents that caused me not to fear. In the 'late '50s and early '60s, Vegas had acquired the lovely nickname of Mississippi of the West. It was segregated by impermeable identifiable borders. A few Neighbors of ours were Strip Musicians, and the visitors there were completely integrated. In '63, my parents became registrars of voters, and went into the segregated area to register voters there. They were unable to understand why so few would register Republican. As I intimated, old school to the core, but where you may have a difficulty understanding, old-school west. I think Goldwater was wrong about The Civil Rights Act; the 14th amendment clearly allows federal intervention, and racism was and is a pervasive evil. The projects and The neighborhoods are a perverse and distorted manifestation of the Civil Rights Act's intents though. They are places that feast upon human souls.

And I believe you're wrong about the Goldwater/Neocon connection. Few seem to understand when I remind and warn, and it's probably a function of my aversion to Marxism. as well as my reprobate vagrancy within traditional political divisions that gives me perspective. Trotskyites are in large lowlifes, aptly described as renunciants to their past, assumptive masqueraders, and ends-testing chameleons. The movement's external polarity switch of left to right happened during the Carter Administration, but has its roots in Ford Admin's Team B. They were Scoop Jackson democrats until then. The Committee for the Present Danger was the big turning point, and that is where Kilpatrick picked-up her conservative credentials. You need to step back from linear depictions of politics to understand the insidiousness. If we do not do this, the evil will again become manifest in the future. They must not be allowed to walk-away this time. Here's a link for reflection. The traditional dichotomies: left/right, lib/con and rep/dem carry no meaning to them; and instead these divisions are viewed as a vehicle for gaming with brutal dialectics. Or didn't you hear? Perle likes Barrack Obama. Be very afraid.

I'll end this with a final muse tossed in from the elliptic: the use of Brubeck/Pollack in the Cultural Cold War against Shostakovich/WorkerReality was only slightly evil, as in a stroke of evil genius. We 'effin Buried Them, Kruschev's shoe notwithstanding.

Will peace friend; the else is omnipresent obscenity.

That still doesn't explain giving him the Alito appointment.  She could have withdrawn her resignation when Rhenquist died.  It would have gone a small way to atone for what she did, regardless of her Classical Conservative -never look back - mindset.  She only had to look forward for that one.

And although your explanation is probably right about their thinking, it is not admirable trait, because what you describe is people who NEVER learn from mistakes.  We are awash in people like that today, and it isn't doing us any good.

When my son does poorly on a test, I don't want him to slit his wrists over it; we look at the test, get a better understanding of what the teacher tests for, and study harder the next time.  If there were simple mistakes we note them and he is more aware of those pitfalls when he takes the next one.  What a concept!

....or, he could just "Stay the Course" and flunk the whole damn class.  I wonder if that was Dubya's attitude in Harvard.  Actually, he probably paid someone to take his tests for him; just told them not to do too well so the prof wouldn't be suspicious.

Jan

Duplicate.

(CVille Dem): "There is certainly nothing in his judicial record that would make an argument for a large brain, anyway."

People often attribute virtues to their team and vices to the other side. "People who disagree with me are stupid." It's akin to people who say Barbara Streisand can't sing, or Clint Eastwood can't act, just because they disagree with your politics.

I saw a journalist who covers the USSC discuss her book on C-SPAN. She related the following anecdote: In his first case while on the Court, Justice Thomaas, as is customary for the most junior Justice, spoke last in the deliberation of the case. It was a unanimous decision. Justice Thomeas subsequently went to Chief Justice Rhenquist and said he regretted his decision, and wanted to write a dissent. The Chief Justice assigned to Thomas the task of writing the dissent, which Justice Thomas circulated. On the strength of Justice Thomas' agruments, the Chief Justice and two others changed their votes, and joined Justice Thomas on the losing side of a 5 to 4 split decision. That indicates considerable persuasive ability. If the other justices are smart, and Justice Thomas can change their minds on the strength of his arguments, he's at least as smart. On that evidence, anyway.

(Toobin): "I’ve always thought that the real scandal of Thomas’ confirmation hearing was the pre-Anita Hill portion – where he denied having any fixed ideas about the Constitution. That was not only misleading at best, but it summed up the pitiful state of confirmation hearings."
(Valdron): "Hey, perjury on the supreme court, who would have guessed?"
(CVille Dem): "I don't think, however it excuses his perjuries during his hearings when he claimed to have never even thought about abortion, or other critical issues. Lies can come from even the smallest-brained humans."

I'd ask Mr. Toobin to support his assertion that Clarence Thomas "denied having any fixed ideas about the Constitution" before I'd jump to the conclusion that Judge Thomas perjured himself.

I expect that Mr. Toobin's assertion amount to an extremely loose paraphrase of Judge Thomas' answer to a question on Roe v. Wade, which the press misrepresented as Judge Thomas claiming he'd never thought about the issue. That wasn't what he said.

LEAHY: Have you ever had discussion of Roe v. Wade in the 17 years it has been there?

THOMAS: Only in the most general sense that other individuals express concerns, and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. If you are asking me whether or not I have ever debated the contents of it, that answer to that is no, Senator.

Let's have a direct quote from the hearing testimony, Mr. Toobin.

Let's have a direct quote from the hearing testimony, Jan.

"Perjury" is one form of lie. Libel is another.

Malcom,  I am always interested in being educated.  Could you please cite the case to which you are referring?  I would like to look at it and read what he wrote.  I have taken the time to read a bit of his writings, and although I admit to a lack of objectivity (and I have not read every word he has penned), I stand by my thoughts (so far) on the relative vastness of his grey matter. 

If he and his law clerks put together a scholarly and persuasive argument once, it should certainly be noted, however.  I believe George Bush put a sentence together once that was not only grammatically correct, but also pronounced without one single error!

The stuff that has been excerpted from his book betrays small-mindedness, at least. 

Jan

....Scalia's pointed comments to Foskett complicate Bush's support for Thomas considerably. Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."....

The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law....

goes on to cite some examples @

Douglas T. Kendall, Washington Post, October 14, 2004

This might be it, but:...

I read it.  Charming.  Thomas also demured in his opinions about capital punishment -- didn't have an opinion -- wouldn't want to say anything that might make him seem prejudiced.  Well, he and George are certainly on the same page as far as executing Texans are concerned!

Jan

Which proves that Thomas should never be referred to as a Conservative.

He is a right-sided activist, as is Scalia, but at least Scalia gives a passing reference of reverence to stare decisis, his decisions notwithstanding.

How far Contemporary Conservatism has fallen from its once vaunted position as defender of immutable truths that are locked in stone. They now dance the situationalist jig, but without the temerity to admit the truth.

One glaring example: No Real Conservative would ever in a million years ground their defense of an Executive's overreach of power; a President's theft of Natural Liberty, in the acts, words or legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

When the President picks Supreme Court nominess on the basis of their judicial philosopy, as Bush does, and as Reagan did, Congress is perfectly justified in probing this judicial philosophy and rejecting appointments if they do not approve of it. The Democrats should have filibustored to stop Bush's right wing appointments, just as they should have filibutored against Thomas.

Had they filibustered either Roberts or Alito the GOP would have taken away the judicial filibuster. Maybe that would have been a good thing ultimately (the Dems could now retaliate by taking away the filibuster period), but both Roberts and Alito would still be on the Court.

So is Dred Scott a problem of the Court or the Constitution?

Both

(PseudoCyAnts): "Two reasons why Thomas' Kelo dissent is disingenuous."

"Disingenuous" is the gone-to-college way to call someone a liar. Let's try to keep this civil.

(PseudoCyAnts): "First: Thomas elevates private property ownership via an implied right stated within the Fifth's takings clause, to a higher plane than he does the explicitly delineated liberties for all humans that find themselves under the prosecutorial gun of the state:

No person shall be...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Okay, but this never applied to prisoners of war or spies captured on the field of battle. Non-uniformed enemy combatants have less protection than either enemy soldiers in uniform or US civilians in peacetime. This is something that Congress will have to sort out, as "war" blends smoothly into "crime" and as non-State actors displace nations as promoters of conflict. I don't think Justice Thomas has enunciated an absurd position.

As to the second, I haven't seen a simple and consistent interpretation of "equal protection" and "full faith and credit". It makes sense that title established in one State should be recognized in another. What about statutory rape and age of consent? Suppose some 17-year-old marries a 14-year-old in a State where that is legal, then joins the military and is transferred, at age 18, to a State where 14-year-olds cannot marry or consent to sex? If marriage licenses fall under the full faith and credit clause, why not concealed-carry licenses? If everyone else is confused, I don't fault Justice Thomas for being confused as well.

Anyway, I found this amusing.

I love it!

In his first case while on the Court, Justice Thomaas, as is customary for the most junior Justice, spoke last in the deliberation of the case. It was a unanimous decision. Justice Thomeas subsequently went to Chief Justice Rhenquist and said he regretted his decision, and wanted to write a dissent. The Chief Justice assigned to Thomas the task of writing the dissent, which Justice Thomas circulated. On the strength of Justice Thomas' agruments, the Chief Justice and two others changed their votes, and joined Justice Thomas on the losing side of a 5 to 4 split decision. That indicates considerable persuasive ability. If the other justices are smart, and Justice Thomas can change their minds on the strength of his arguments, he's at least as smart. On that evidence, anyway.

Wow. What a terrific story. It's heartwarming, enduring, it's full of that homey personal touch that shows off Thomas as a humble guy, a thoughtful guy, a smart guy and a persuasive guy.

But, oh wait...

What I wrote is what I remembered. This might be it, but:... a) It's not the first term on which Justice Thomas served and b) the decision was 6-3 not 5-4.

So it turns out it wasn't true at all though. How utterly REAGANESQUE! I dunno, I anyone can make a mistake. But overall, this whole incident reminds me of Reagan and his endless stories about medal of honour winners, and his being with the soldiers who went into concentration camps, and welfare queens, and trees causing acid rain... None of which was ever true. But it was always a good story, such a good story, memorable, tugging at the heartsprings, full or readers digest sacharine.

Golly gee. It's such a good story, Malcolm, that it ought to be true. Too bad it's horseshit.

Here's the real story with Clarence Thomas:

1) He was completely unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He had not established himself as a prominent jurist, a prominent academic, or a prominent politician. His career demonstrated no particular brilliance.

2) It's pretty much settled that Anita Hill's statements were true. They were never disproved or repudiated, and I believe that similar behaviour was documented.

3) Clarence Thomas perjured himself during his confirmation hearings. He perjured himself on both Hill, and on his legal and political views.

4) Clarence Thomas, on the Supreme Court contributes less than any other Justice. He asks fewest questions during hearings, often not asking questions at all. He writes the fewest opinions. These are facts not open to dispute.

5) I will venture the opinion that his opinions, on the rare occasions that he writes them, are generally poorly framed and thought out, but that might be argued to be my opinion. It is, however, universally agreed that he is one of the most extreme right wing personalities, and that his political views are significantly to the right of the American mainstream.

6) His autobiography reveals him to be petty, mean spirited, vindictive and arch. He's a seething pool of self absorption, self pity, anger and hatred. He never lets a grudge go. This is the guy in his own words.

These are the facts of the man, Malcolm. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Feel free to tell more made up stories.

(Valdron): "Clarence Thomas, on the Supreme Court contributes less than any other Justice. He asks fewest questions during hearings, often not asking questions at all. He writes the fewest opinions. These are facts not open to dispute."

Oh?

This site maintains a list of Supreme Court opinions, by author. My count may be off by one or two, and won't be up to date if the site isn't, but in raw numbers, Valdron's claim, although it depends on what one counts, is generally false.

(Name, d/m/y joined, opinions, concurrences, dissents, concur in part/dissent in part, opinions plus dissents, concurrence plus concur in part, total).

Breyer, 3-09-1994, O=93, C=60, D=81, C/D=13, O+D=174, C+C/D=73, T=247.
Ginsburg, 10-08-1993, O=108, C=59, D=60, C/D= 7, O+D=168, C+C/D=66, T=234.
Kennedy, 18-02-1988, O=119, C=81, D=44, C/D=8, O+D=163, C+C/D=89, T=252.
Scalia, 26-09-1986, O=123, C=133, D=104, C/D=18, 0+D=227, C=C/D=151, T=378.
Souter, 9-10-1990, O=121, C=66, D=75, C/D=16, O+D=196, C+C/D=82, T=278.
Stevens, 1-12-1975, O=126, C=102, D=180, C/D=27, O+D=306, C+C/D=129, T=435.
Thomas, 23-10-1991, O=112, C=81, D=102, C/D=21, O+D=214, C+C/D=102, T=316.

1) Opinions for the Court, in raw numbers, Justice Thomas wrote more than Justice Breyer or Ginsburg.
2) Concurrances: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, or Souter.
3) Dissents, Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Souter.
4) Concur in part: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Souter.
5)Opinions plus dissents: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Souter.
6) Concur plus concur in part: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Souter.
7) Total: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Souter.

Since they have not all had the same time on the Court, I divided by the number of years since their appointment (rounding to the nearest whole year). Results rounded to the second decimal place.

Breyer, 13, O=7.15, C=4.61, D=8.23, C/D=1, O+D=13.36, C+C/D=5.62, T=5.62.
Ginsburg, 14, O=7.71, C=11.92, D=4.28, C/D=.5, O+D=12, C+C/D=4.71, T=16.71.
Kennedy, 29, O=4.10, C=2.79, D=1.51, C/D=.275, O+D=5.58, C+C/D=3.07, T=8.68.
Scalia, 21, O=5.86, C=6.3, D=4.95, C/D=.875, O+D=10.80, C+C/D=7.19. T=18.
Souter, 17, O=7.12, C=3.88, D=4.41, C/D=.94, O+D=11.52, C+C/D=4.82, T=16.35.
Stevens, 31, O=4.06, C=3.29, D=5.80, C/D=.87, O+D=9.87, C+C/D=4.16, T=14.03.
Thomas, 16, O=7, C=5.06, D=6.38, C/D=1.31, O+D=13.38, C+C/D=6.38, T=19.75.

1) Opinions for the majority, per year: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Kennedy, Scalia, or Stevens.
2) Concurring opinions per year: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, or Stevens.
3) Dissents per year: Justice Thomas wrote more than Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, or Stevens.
4) Concur in part: Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, or Stevens.
5) Opinions plus dissents, Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, or Stevens.
6) Concur plus concur in part, Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, or Stevens.
7) Total, Justice Thomas wrote more than Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, or Stevens.

Feel free to tell more made up stories,

(Toobin): "I’ve always thought that the real scandal of Thomas’ confirmation hearing was the pre-Anita Hill portion – where he denied having any fixed ideas about the Constitution. That was not only misleading at best, but it summed up the pitiful state of confirmation hearings."
(Valdron): "Hey, perjury on the supreme court, who would have guessed?"
(CVille Dem): "I don't think, however it excuses his perjuries during his hearings when he claimed to have never even thought about abortion, or other critical issues. Lies can come from even the smallest-brained humans."

(malcolm): "I'd ask Mr. Toobin to support his assertion that Clarence Thomas "denied having any fixed ideas about the Constitution" before I'd jump to the conclusion that Judge Thomas perjured himself."

(malcolm): "I expect that Mr. Toobin's assertion amount to an extremely loose paraphrase of Judge Thomas' answer to a question on Roe v. Wade, which the press misrepresented as Judge Thomas claiming he'd never thought about the issue. That wasn't what he said."

LEAHY: Have you ever had discussion of Roe v. Wade in the 17 years it has been there?

THOMAS: Only in the most general sense that other individuals express concerns, and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. If you are asking me whether or not I have ever debated the contents of it, that answer to that is no, Senator.

(malcolm): "Let's have a direct quote from the hearing testimony, Mr. Toobin. Let's have a direct quote from the hearing testimony, Jan."

JUDGE THOMAS: Again, Senator, I -- it would be, I think, for me to respond to what my views are on those particular issues. It would really undermine my ability to be impartial in those cases. I'm attempted to respond as candidly and openly as I possibly can without in any way undermining or compromising my ability to rule on these cases.

(jan): "Right. Because by not saying what his preconceived notions are, he will be objective? Who is stupid enough to believe that? OK, Malcolm. It's all there. It is fascinating. Do your own homework. Thomas is a lying hack."

You have demonstrated that you can copy material from the hearings. Where is the support for Mr. Toobin's assertion that Justice Thomas "he denied having any fixed ideas about the Constitution" or CVille Dem's claim that Justice Thomas "claimed to have never even thought about abortion, or other critical issues"?

(Jan): "I gave you direct quotes. There are plenty more; it's all in the record."

Here's a direct quote: "he claimed to have never even thought about abortion". Can you back that up?

None of it establishes that Judge Thomas lied. I agree that he dodged controversy as much as possible, but that's hardly the same as denying that he ever discussed or thought about Roe v. Wade or that he had no views on the constitution. Go ahead and quote the entire transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings if you want.

(Valdron): "Clarence Thomas, on the Supreme Court contributes less than any other Justice. He asks fewest questions during hearings, often not asking questions at all. He writes the fewest opinions. These are facts not open to dispute."

I dispute the contention that Clarence Thomas "writes the fewest opinions". The number of opinions written by Justice Thomas, compared to the number of opinions written by the other justices is certainly "valid" (i.e., relevant). The claim that Justice Thomas "writes the fewest opinions" is demonstrably false. One could always adjust for the age of the Justices (but Valdron did not qualify his assertion). One could adjust for the number of cases heard (one could just take recent years).

Certainly it is possible that the Chief Justice assignes the simple cases to some justices and the complex cases to others. That wasn't part of Valdron's assertion, and no one has established that it is the case anyway.

PseudoCyAnts point about concurrences and concur in part opinions was the reason I separated these. Majority opinions and dissents are assigned. The statistics on assigned versus voluntary opinions mean different things. Worse than their effect on other Justices, they create uncertainty in the larger society, and create the expectaton that the court may later reverse itself.

But that's a different issue from the absolute number of opinions.

Here's a question: Why did Thomas' book appear now (or at all)?

I'm going to make a guess that he is planning to leave the court. I don't know anything about the interpersonal relationships, but they have obviously changed with the addition of Alito and Roberts. Perhaps he has lost his mentor (or protector) now that Rehnquist is gone. Perhaps the new justices, who don't think there is any discrimination in America show their lack of sensitivity (or racism) in ways he finds uncomfortable.

On the other hand it seems fairly certain that a Dem will become president and Stevens will retire (perhaps Ginsburg as well). The new president wil appoint more progressive justices who will be younger and more energetic. They may swing the court in directions he doesn't favor.

By getting his case out now he opens the way for a new career. He might move to some sort of international position where he would be given the type of respect he desires. His whole life has been one of feeling put upon, a new role as a senior justice would satisfy his psychological needs.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Perhaps he has lost his mentor (or protector) now that Rehnquist is gone.

Do you have anything of substance to back up this aspersion? Most accounts of Rehnquist show him to have been a person of great humor, who did not carry grudges. Hardly the type of person who would mentor a Justice far to his right in political ideology.

You should not gloss the differences, as you only serve the Big Tent of GOP Inclusiveness in doing so. You should also realise that it was the partisan hammering of Bork that brought about the Thomas appointment. I am not a fan of Bork's Judicial Philosophy, but Bork would have been less of an activist than either Thomas or Scalia.

(Valdron): "So it turns out it wasn't true at all though...Golly gee. It's such a good story, Malcolm, that it ought to be true. Too bad it's horseshit."

Like, your memory is perfect. Sorry, but the difference between 5-4 and 6-3 in this context is minor, and the difference between Justice Thomas' first decision and the first decision of the first complete term is minor. I don't remember the author who was interviewed, or the title of the book. If there were some way to put a secure wager on it, so you could make it worth my while to dig, I'd look for it. As it is, Valdron can throw slime from the sidelines, as usual.

(Valdron): "2) It's pretty much settled that Anita Hill's statements were true. They were never disproved or repudiated, and I believe that similar behaviour was documented."

It's pretty much settled that sexual harassment charges are usually he said/she said affairs that are difficult to prove one way or the other. It's the case that Anita Hill made similar charges against a previous employer, that Thomas' other subordinates testified overwhelmingly on his behalf, and that Hill's supporting witness perjured herself wrt the chronology.

(Valdron): "6) His autobiography reveals him to be petty, mean spirited, vindictive and arch. He's a seething pool of self absorption, self pity, anger and hatred. He never lets a grudge go. This is the guy in his own words."

I understand that that's how journalist reviewers see it. I suspect that they haven't read it. Have you?