That a black man-born 1948 in Pin Point, GA-could be party to such a ruling simply boggles the mind
SCOTUSBlog warns us that we should expect another 5-4 ruling, one that strikes Section 5 from the books. That's their preliminary analysis after listening to oral arguments today. They don't think preclearance will be ruled completely unconstitutional, but the law will have to be redrafted somehow if we're going to salvage anything.
Following through on the deep constitutional concerns stated in its prior Northwest Austin decision, a majority of the Court seems committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes. The vote seems quite likely to be five to four. The more liberal members pressed both the narrow argument that an Alabama county was not a proper plaintiff because it inevitably would be covered and the broader argument that there was a sufficient record to justify the current formula. But the more conservative majority was plainly not persuaded by either point. It is unlikely that the Court will write an opinion forbidding a preclearance regime. But it may be difficult politically for Congress to enact a new measure. More analysis soon.
- See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/from-the-shelby-county-argument/
That a black man, born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, could be a party to such a ruling simply boggles the mind and takes self-loathing to a level probably not seen before outside of an asylum.
- See more at: http://www.boomantribune.com/#sthash.4Hl3Fdoi.dpuf
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/from-the-shelby-county-argument/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I watched almost every minute of the hearings at the time. I was really stunned when he was confirmed. He's one of those people you get that "gut feeling" about right from the beginning. Ha, I had the same feeling about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong - and my daughter's current boyfriend. 
he seems to be unable to recognize sarcasm in written form, only in spoken form - maybe some people need the verbal cues 
yes INDEED
by the way, that coworker is brilliant tech-wise, which is what counts where I work 
only use the : punctuation marks with no little hyphens,
thus: 
I generally don't like using it, though, because I always assume (often wrongly, obviously) that people should "get it" without the cue, and it seems almost insulting to attach the tag.
It might not be bad for you to practice recognizing sarcasm, though. Like, if something sounds really ridiculous or outrageous, maybe you ought to consider the idea that it might not be a straightforward assertion.
Maybe practice on Stephen Colbert's stuff, for example.
Also, anything Manny Goldstein posts on DU and signs "Third-Way Manny" is invariably sarcastic, although many people seem to miss the fact.
was the same way. She had a charming naiveté - sure do miss her (car accident).
Ha, good ole Judge Judy. I was stunned when I found out she makes around $45 million A YEAR! 
if you have ever been to Pin Point. I have, many times (my grandparents retired to Skidaway Island, which is down the road). When you hear someone is "dirt poor," that's what this is. Just shacks in the woods, next to a swamp, surrounded by chicken wire. And at the entrance a plaque honoring Thomas. This is a view from the road:
I hate the s.o.b. - but back in the day that was also lodged at any person of color of the 'mulatto' or 'mulatta' version. I had to throw a few punches on the playground because of that in late 1970's and early 1980's.
He's not that - that is just a way for someone to ask "Why do you talk white?" 
Stick to - he's an ignorant repitilian son of a bitch that is too wet to step on and way too damn low to kick.
Clarence Thomas is a midget standing on the shoulders of giants, and never looked beneath his feet to see how hard they struggled so that he could be where he is.
Oh, and btw, I always believed Professor Anita Hill.
Hekate
