« Fighting over Fashion IP Rights | Main | Selling the Illinois Lottery »

January 22, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d83510c40e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Supreme Conflict":

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Frederick Hamilton

Refreshing to read of the true caliber of Justice Thomas. Certainly debunks the notion of a justice not the intellectual equal of the rest of the Supremes. Poor Harry Reid. He is the true neanderthal in trying to smear Thomas as not up to the intellectual challeges of legal discerment. Nice recent columns by Jan Crawford Greenburg.

Erasmussimo

Mr. Hamilton, I believe that you misread the Wall Street Journal on Mr. Thomas. The article's point was that Mr. Thomas did not follow Mr. Scalia's lead. Although the author apparently holds Mr. Thomas in high regard, she offered no evidence to support her thesis.

Erasmussimo

Oops, I meant to write "that thesis" in the last sentence, referring to her high opinion of Mr. Thomas.

gp

Mr. Hamilton,

I enjoyed reading your comments last week because they were so utterly reactionary (regarding national security law and the war on terrorism.) But you are treading into the waters of being just a right wing lackie!

Even if what ms. greenburg says is true, it does nothing to dispel the conventional wisdom that Mr. Thomas is not only ineffectual, but just an idiot. This is a guy who wrote so few opinions before he was elevated to SCOTUS that you could count them on one hand. And regardless of the tales that he spins about being interested in hearing what lawyers have to say as his explanation for why he lets YEARS pass before asking a question, the fact remains that if this behavior became widespread in our adversarial system, the whole system would become meaningless. In short, good for Justice Thomas getting a reprieve for once from the likes of Ms. Greenburg! But do not confuse that for any type of proof that he is not the least competent justice on the court.

Joan A. Conway

When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor became a Supreme Court Justice on or about 1981, I cut out her Newspaper clipping with President Ronald Reagan and placed it on my dresser, while going to San Diego State University, a hot bed of anti(s).

I looked up to the beautiful lady and admired her.

Today the very tired old woman looks like she badly needs a rest. Can anyone not want Sandra to have sometime for herself.

She has sacrificed much for women with the role of a Justice. She was not a bit vain and she aged fast.

This is not necessary an encouraging fact for aspiring female Justices, is it?

I hope she lives until she is 110 years old.

Cynic

Joan, I'm sure you don't mean that women would not aspire to be justices simply because we would no longer be "pretty"? I imagine being a Supreme Court justice would age anyone -- male or female -- fairly quickly. I don't see any reason why women in particular should be more averse to stress.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.