4 ms·

Regardless of what your take is on the substance, as a former lawyer, I was really struck at the language in the various concurrences and dissents. They are ver

Regardless of what your take is on the substance, as a former lawyer, I was really struck at the language in the various concurrences and dissents. They are very clearly pissed and/or disgusted with each other in a way that is very not-normal, even for hot button cases.

Georgelemental 3y ago
This issue is personal for justices Thomas, Jackson, and Sotomayor especially. I think that is reflected in their opinions.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Sotomayor as well. What fascinates me about Thomas’s dissent is towards the end he talks about HBCUs and how effective they are. You’ll find language of his in a lot of places suggesting black separatist—type sympathies. He was a genuine radical in his college years in that respect, and he’s still clearly sympathetic to sone extent. Cards on the table: I think Justice Thomas has a genuinely nutty jurisprudence. Like way out there nutty. And I disagree with him about virtually everything. But he’s much more complex than the standard caricatures allow for (even when they come from fellow-travelers, like the people who thought Thomas was just Scalia’s lapdog; wrong; Scalia was nakedly unprincipled when compared to Thomas).
  - ekam 3y ago
    Yeah he does seem to have a somewhat cohesive and distinct philosophy of his own that undergirds his decisions and that's been underappreciated given his influence over the Court and American jurisprudence
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      Because he doesn’t really have any influence. He is locked inside a jurisprudence of one. I suppose I prefer that sort of honest integrity—even though batshit crazy-to the kind of unprincipled, inconsistent but always screechy Scalia.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > I think Justice Thomas has a genuinely nutty jurisprudence How many other judges routinely cite their own opinion when it was in the minority? I gotta say though I respect the massive the balls to constantly be doing that.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Personally, I don't find anything to respect in narcissism.
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      Yeah, well, it’s hard to cite precedent supporting your position when you arrive at your position by rejecting basically all precedent. The solipsism of his dissents gets to be vertiginous.

Georgelemental 3y ago

This issue is personal for justices Thomas, Jackson, and Sotomayor especially. I think that is reflected in their opinions.

dmvdoug 3y ago
Sotomayor as well. What fascinates me about Thomas’s dissent is towards the end he talks about HBCUs and how effective they are. You’ll find language of his in a lot of places suggesting black separatist—type sympathies. He was a genuine radical in his college years in that respect, and he’s still clearly sympathetic to sone extent. Cards on the table: I think Justice Thomas has a genuinely nutty jurisprudence. Like way out there nutty. And I disagree with him about virtually everything. But he’s much more complex than the standard caricatures allow for (even when they come from fellow-travelers, like the people who thought Thomas was just Scalia’s lapdog; wrong; Scalia was nakedly unprincipled when compared to Thomas).
- ekam 3y ago
  Yeah he does seem to have a somewhat cohesive and distinct philosophy of his own that undergirds his decisions and that's been underappreciated given his influence over the Court and American jurisprudence
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Because he doesn’t really have any influence. He is locked inside a jurisprudence of one. I suppose I prefer that sort of honest integrity—even though batshit crazy-to the kind of unprincipled, inconsistent but always screechy Scalia.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > I think Justice Thomas has a genuinely nutty jurisprudence How many other judges routinely cite their own opinion when it was in the minority? I gotta say though I respect the massive the balls to constantly be doing that.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Personally, I don't find anything to respect in narcissism.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Yeah, well, it’s hard to cite precedent supporting your position when you arrive at your position by rejecting basically all precedent. The solipsism of his dissents gets to be vertiginous.