4 ms·

I agree. Kavanaugh’s argument seems to be that it’s not seizure because they did a bad job at it. If the police arrest you, you can argue in court that it was w

I agree. Kavanaugh’s argument seems to be that it’s not seizure because they did a bad job at it. If the police arrest you, you can argue in court that it was wrongful. If they chase you, shoot you, stick you in the trunk of a car, but you escape, then there was no seizure so you cannot sue. Note, I am sure that he, Alito, and Thomas are doing what they think is right for the country. I just think they are wrong.

gizmo686 6y ago
Kavanaugh voted with the majority (that it was a seizure). The dissent was Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas
michaelmrose 6y ago
That was Neil Gs opinion not Kavanaughs. Brett managed to get this one right. Thomas managed to find a way to be on the wrong side again of course.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Read the full opinion. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Thomas also actually asked questions during oral argument. For anyone who is not a huge SCOTUS nerd, Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. A lot of people don't like him, for a range of reasons, but I tend to enjoy reading his opinions and hearing his questions (when he asks them) even if I disagree with them.
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    > Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. My understanding is that, historically speaking, Thomas found that Scalia's probing of arguments was frequently sufficient, and that after Scalia's death, Thomas felt it necessary to start asking questions again.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I've heard this too, but as far as I'm aware Thomas has not confirmed this as the reason for why he's speaking up now. Edit: Wanted to say that it's kind of weird to me to think that Thomas wasn't asking questions only because Scalia was. Maybe that's true, but it's just an odd thing to think for me after reading tons of Thomas' opinions. He definitely has a mind of his own.
- refurb 6y ago
  Arm chair internet legal expert shares why legal scholar on Supreme Court is always “on the wrong side”. Always exciting stuff to read!
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Thanks!
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    He supported the right of the state of Texas to regulate what kind of sex it's citizens were allowed to have in Lawrence v Texas where cops responding to a noise complaint found gay men having sex and arrested them for having sex in their own home. Flowers v. Mississippi was arguably worse or at least as bad. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-astonishing-opinion-on-a-racist-mississippi-prosecutor https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas... He believes a person facing prison has a right to hire counsel or accept the services of same but no right to effective counsel as established by Gideon v. Wainwright https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 He also disagrees with New York Times vs. Sullivan. Wherein we severely limited the misuse of civil courts by public figuree to shut down free expression. A capable analysis by the la times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-opinions-20190305-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supr... I could go on and on the constitution as he sees it would describe a nation unfit to live in something he has in common with strict constructionists. Thomas is both morally and intellectually unfit https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/clarence-thomas-and-the-right-to-remain-silent/7971/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/clarence-thoma... He never credibly established his right to be on the court in the first place and his silence in court is because he has nothing to say. When he does speak in his dissents it is frequently to express sentiments that shock the conscience. He is more forward now because the conservative world has rotated far enough to the right that it is well aligned at this point with Thomas malignancy. He is emboldened and we ought to be concerned. I might be an armchair non expert but at least I know people should have a right to council, the state shouldn't regulate what consenting adults do with their genitals buying legislators isn't speech, and trying a black man 6 times because the convictions keep getting overturned for prosecutorial misconduct is wrong. This puts me, someone manifestly unfit to be a justice, head and shoulders above thomas. So glad to have provided such rich entertainment. Got anything else to say?

gizmo686 6y ago

Kavanaugh voted with the majority (that it was a seizure). The dissent was Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas

michaelmrose 6y ago

That was Neil Gs opinion not Kavanaughs. Brett managed to get this one right. Thomas managed to find a way to be on the wrong side again of course.

remarkEon 6y ago
Read the full opinion. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Thomas also actually asked questions during oral argument. For anyone who is not a huge SCOTUS nerd, Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. A lot of people don't like him, for a range of reasons, but I tend to enjoy reading his opinions and hearing his questions (when he asks them) even if I disagree with them.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  > Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. My understanding is that, historically speaking, Thomas found that Scalia's probing of arguments was frequently sufficient, and that after Scalia's death, Thomas felt it necessary to start asking questions again.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I've heard this too, but as far as I'm aware Thomas has not confirmed this as the reason for why he's speaking up now. Edit: Wanted to say that it's kind of weird to me to think that Thomas wasn't asking questions only because Scalia was. Maybe that's true, but it's just an odd thing to think for me after reading tons of Thomas' opinions. He definitely has a mind of his own.
refurb 6y ago
Arm chair internet legal expert shares why legal scholar on Supreme Court is always “on the wrong side”. Always exciting stuff to read!
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Thanks!
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  He supported the right of the state of Texas to regulate what kind of sex it's citizens were allowed to have in Lawrence v Texas where cops responding to a noise complaint found gay men having sex and arrested them for having sex in their own home. Flowers v. Mississippi was arguably worse or at least as bad. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-astonishing-opinion-on-a-racist-mississippi-prosecutor https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas... He believes a person facing prison has a right to hire counsel or accept the services of same but no right to effective counsel as established by Gideon v. Wainwright https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 He also disagrees with New York Times vs. Sullivan. Wherein we severely limited the misuse of civil courts by public figuree to shut down free expression. A capable analysis by the la times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-opinions-20190305-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supr... I could go on and on the constitution as he sees it would describe a nation unfit to live in something he has in common with strict constructionists. Thomas is both morally and intellectually unfit https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/clarence-thomas-and-the-right-to-remain-silent/7971/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/clarence-thoma... He never credibly established his right to be on the court in the first place and his silence in court is because he has nothing to say. When he does speak in his dissents it is frequently to express sentiments that shock the conscience. He is more forward now because the conservative world has rotated far enough to the right that it is well aligned at this point with Thomas malignancy. He is emboldened and we ought to be concerned. I might be an armchair non expert but at least I know people should have a right to council, the state shouldn't regulate what consenting adults do with their genitals buying legislators isn't speech, and trying a black man 6 times because the convictions keep getting overturned for prosecutorial misconduct is wrong. This puts me, someone manifestly unfit to be a justice, head and shoulders above thomas. So glad to have provided such rich entertainment. Got anything else to say?