It's over with, folks. We finally have the last pieces of evidence - a dishwasher, the movie Private Ryan, and speeches by Douglas MacArthur. And, the predicate has been laid for us in a very revealing interview given by the justice himself. It turns out that Clarence Thomas did it with a flag and a crucifix in the den.
The Silent One has spoken.
As Brother Harlan has noted elsewhere, Justice Thomas has talked more to CBS 60 Minutes than from the bench. But, he has explained himself now. And, the only verdict that any reasonable jury can come to is . . . the guy is just depressed. I mean, more depressed than even I thought he was!! I would venture to say more depressed than ANYONE thought he was. He makes Thurgood Marshall look like a happy justice!! (Marshall, of course, was notoriously unhappy on the Court)
Justice Thomas' most recent comments have revealed the true source of his discontent. It is the 14th Amendment. If only Akhil Amar or Garrett Epps had a degree in psychology. Justice Thomas' long, rambling response to a question about "what since the Civil War has changed our view of the Constitution" reveals an inner tension brought about by an irreconcilable collection of values. There is a disconnect among Thomas' concern over too much emphasis on rights, the changing social and cultural norms that got him to the Court, and the intent of the framer of that amendment regarding to what use Congress could put it. I think it is causing him serious mental strain.
And, I gotta say what is it with Republicans and technology? George H.W. Bush was astounded by a grocery store scanner. Now we discover the justice he put on the Court finds dishwashers magical?!! Enjoys loading them and then peering inside during the dry cycle?!!
And, that swipe at those of us who think we can do his job better than he can - “What I have found in this job is they know more about it than I do, especially if they have the title ‘law professor.’ ”
Ouch.
I think I'll stop picking on Justice Thomas now. And forever. I see him as a truly . . . clinically depressed character among the men and women who have occupied a seat on that court. There is nothing wrong with his jurisprudence that a little Zoloft couldn't cure. I hope he discovers that for himself.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Of Courts and Crucifix
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Lawrence v. Texas Has No Effect in Georgia
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) changed absolutely nothing in the State of Georgia. This is so because, in 1998, the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia struck down OCGA § 16-6-2(a), a statute crimnalizing all acts of sodomy, as an unconstitutional violation of privacy protections afforded under Georgia's constitution.
In an ironic twist, this was the very same act that the Supreme Court of the United States held constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. And, the case, Powell v. State of Georgia, was decided fully five years before the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence.
Petitioner, Powell, was charged with performing non-consensual oral sex on his wife's 17 year-old daughter. At trial, the jury acquitted him on the non-consensual charge, but found him guilty of consensual sodomy under the statute. He then appealed, basis for appeal being that the act under which he had been found guilty violated the State constitution's privacy guarantees.
The Georgia Supreme Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Lance Cullpepper stated:
"If he'd be one o' dem, ahhhh, . . . funny types wid the limp wrists an all, o' one o' dem switch hittas, den . . . let's jus say dat we be comin' to a very different kinda decision ta day. But he ain't, and we ain't neitha!! We thinks da boy deserve some privacy. Dis is Georgia, folks. We do dat stuff indoors now."
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Shortest opinion ever
J.H. GILLIS, Judge.
The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc. (1969), 17 Mich.App. 259, 169 N.W.2d 326. He didn't. We couldn't.
Affirmed.
Denny v. Radar Industries, Inc., 184 N.W.2d 289, 290 (Mich. App. 1971)
It's the Ogden Nash of opinions. Excellent.
A very grateful hat-tip to Lowering the Bar.
dicta \ 'dik-te \ n. [L. fr. neut. of dictus, ptp. of dicere] (1599) 1: a noteworthy statement: as a: a formal pronouncement of a principle, proposition, or opinion b: an observation intended or regarded as authoritative 2: a judicial opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case 3: a legendary coach of the Chicago Bears football team from 1982-1992. 


