War Room Lounge v6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saying you look up to a guy who is universally panned as being incompetent and doltish and regarded as the most unethical jurist of his generation is just embarrassing.
It's simply false that he's universally panned. I suspect you are aware of that, but it that it feels good to attack an important figure who you perceive as part of the "other" tribe. I think it's a bit sad that you seek this form of gratification.
 
It's simply false that he's universally panned. I suspect you are aware of that, but it that it feels good to attack an important figure who you perceive as part of the "other" tribe. I think it's a bit sad that you seek this form of gratification.

No, it's absolutely true, and you can refer to our previous threads on Supreme Court Justices for insights. Or you can look up any discussion by legal scholars and see how poorly he is perceived and how poorly he was regarded by the legal community at the time of his appointment. He was an blundering head of the EEOC, he was a suspect legal mind, and he has continually shown himself to be an incompetent and unintelligent jurist with poor ethical character, both in repeatedly failing to recuse himself from conflicted matters and in being a giant creep who has sexually abused several women.

Scalia will go down as a better than average jurist, as will Roberts most likely. Rehnquist will go down as average, or possibly better than average as well. Alito and Gorsuch will go down as being below average. Thomas will go down as one of the very worst in Supreme Court history, and easily (easily) the worst since the Taft Court.

Maybe leave discussions of legal and historical substance to persons who aren't partisan cheerleaders.
 
Saying you look up to a guy who is universally panned as being incompetent and doltish and regarded as the most unethical jurist of his generation is just embarrassing.

Beyond your improper usage of the term "universally" and your vague criticism ("incompetent" in what way? "unethical" how?) even your phrasing is telling. Instead of presenting a specific complaint, you use the passive voice to avoid naming the critics to which you refer. But worst of all, your criticism relies on the opinions of others instead of your own. Groupthink is very common around these parts, and you are clearly one of those who engages in it with gusto.

If I had written a post of this quality, I would certainly feel embarrassed.
 
you can refer to our previous threads on Supreme Court Justices for insights
Typically, I prefer to read legal analysis from places other than cage fighting forums.

look up any discussion by legal scholars and see how poorly he is perceived

"Any discussion"...you and I both can produce multiple opinions by legal scholars praising Thomas's jurisprudence. Why does your writing lack any sense of nuance?
 
Beyond your improper usage of the term "universally" and your vague criticism ("incompetent" in what way? "unethical" how?) even your phrasing is telling. Instead of presenting a specific complaint, you use the passive voice to avoid naming the critics to which you refer. But worst of all, your criticism relies on the opinions of others instead of your own. Groupthink is very common around these parts, and you are clearly one of those who engages in it with gusto.

If I had written a post of this quality, I would certainly feel embarrassed.

As far as my deference to the opinions of other members of the legal community, yes, I think prevalence in the profession is a valid consideration. As I said, you're welcome to revisit that thread I made on this subject and see bar member posters from each side of the aisle submitting that Thomas is a horrible blight in recent Supreme Court history. And, yes, I am additionally not keen on being lectured by moronic partisan laymen about the greatness of a jurist that most every first year law student would concede is laughably inept. I do not care if my absolutist language hurts your sensibilities towards thinking all of your opinions are valid by virtue of the fact that you hold them with sincerity. This may rate particularly high on my condescension and arrogance chart, but fuck it.

"incompetent" in what way?

Incompetent in being famously disinterested in his job, in relying almost exclusively on his law clerks and, in his rare opinions, merely copy and pasting from party briefs, in failing to draw out his legal reasoning to any logical conclusion, in failing to actually cite the "originalist" source of his conclusion and instead just ambiguously referring to them (lol @ the irony of you not liking my doing the same), in failing to write opinions when his position on a case comes in clear controversy with one of his previous positions, his complete lack of ideological or procedural consistency despite his proclamations to the contrary. I could go on for hours on this subject.

"unethical" how?

Just lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/u...&gwh=E38864AF766723D2330935D745EB8B06&gwt=pay
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...estionable-ethics-standard-of-clarence-thomas
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-industries_n_769843.html
https://www.politicususa.com/2013/1...icial-ethics-headlining-wing-fundraisers.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/politics/20koch.html
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/5/24/978540/-
https://www.thenation.com/article/will-clarence-thomas-recuse-himself-obamacare-case/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/news/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114
https://thinkprogress.org/justices-...g-what-clarence-thomas-has-done-9a704f1027fe/
https://thinkprogress.org/alito-tho...ing-right-wing-donor-paul-singer-adcb52f2bb2/
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/08/justice-thomas-corrupt-record-should-inspire-new-code-ethics
https://www.washingtonpost.com/?utm_term=.1466748a4ada (this one is more just about him being a scum bag; for similar lack of presonal)

If I had written a post of this quality, I would certainly feel embarrassed.

Again - just lol
 
What kind of heathen uses a goddamn pot to cook rice when there's things called RICE COOKERS available.
Someone who knows what the fuck they're doing and doesn't need a special machine to cook rice?

Remember you ancestors Greg-san. Have some pride. Son, I am disappoint.
200w.gif
 
HuffPo... come on dude..........

Huffington Post is a good source. A oft-liberal source, but one that regularly produced quality content.

The persons who would equate quality journalism from the left to bunk tabloid trash on the right, just by nature of their diametrical ideological skew, are misguided imo.
 
What kind of heathen uses a goddamn pot to cook rice when there's things called RICE COOKERS available.

The kind that likes versatility in a tool? How much other shit can you use the rice cooker for compared to a pan?
 
Huffington Post is a good source. A oft-liberal source, but one that regularly produced quality content.

The persons who would equate quality journalism from the left to bunk tabloid trash on the right, just by nature of their diametrical ideological skew, are misguided imo.
People think that having shitty leftist opinion pieces from time to time is equal to outright lying from right wingers.
 
People think that having shitty leftist opinion pieces from time to time is equal to outright lying from right wingers.

Yeah, I just don't understand the inability of some people (not Gregolian, but people in general) to differentiate between an editorial/blog post being an editorial/blog post and actual news reports being dishonest.

HuffPo having an occasional opinion piece about the moral virtues of veganism isn't disqualifying in the way that Breitbart literally makes up stories and cites to Twitter feeds.
 
I have one of the oldest join dates in the War Room so I have seen a lot of the trends in the War Room over the past 15 years. one of the post disturbing is posters responding to cogent well thought out posts without any words. It is increasingly common for posters to post gif and other images in an effort to silence or derail. Is anyone else bothered by this trend?
 
Sometimes it works but some posters do it just to be obnoxious.
 
Yeah, but they're leftists and stick together. It's the same group who like each others posts the entire time they're on here. It's weird, but that's what identity politics does to people. I haven't noticed people who I consider right wingers do it. @sniper has the ironic posting down though, but at least it's content.
 
Yeah, but they're leftists and stick together. It's the same group who like each others posts the entire time they're on here. It's weird, but that's what identity politics does to people. I haven't noticed people who I consider right wingers do it. @sniper has the ironic posting down though, but at least it's content.

I think it is sarcastic posting that @sniper has down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top