lib observation. thomas is bad because he has disasterous and selfish opinions, not because he didn't check off enough resume boxes.
(btw, he's YLS and served as an assistant AG, and then had some federal appointment by reagan, and then was an federal appellate judge, so he literally does have all the resume boxes checked lol.)
it's still a noteworthy observation; even by its own ideas, liberalism fails to meet any standards when profits can be increased. This is a nebulous way, but having some fool there was useful over someone who was ready and could do the job right.
again, it's factually inaccurate that he was unqualified by some liberal standard. he had an excellent pedigree. (other than his personal life, uh, improprieties.)
but more importantly, no, it's immaterial. there is not a shortage of gorsuches or kavanaughs that could be assigned to the bench.
thomas is bad because he has disasterous and selfish opinions, not because he didn’t check off enough resume boxes.
Counterpoint: Every large institutional system needs some level of bureaucracy and experienced bureaucrats provide systematic value that goes beyond their ideological political positions. Sometimes you just need the trains to run on time.
Thomas is awful in a way even Scalia wasn't, because he degrades the constraints that the judiciary is supposed to have on state power. He creates large gray areas that only ever favor far-right groups. His opinions enflame conflict rather than resolving it, and always in a way that facilitates more fascist tendencies in the lower tiers of the bureaucracy.
A big part of that comes from his inability (or disinterest) in the functional role of his appointed position. In a saner world, guys like him would simply be removed from office once they'd laid bare their incompetence and incoherence. But in America, we let leadership serve indefinitely, just so long as they've sufficiently entrenched themselves against the opposition.
lib observation. thomas is bad because he has disasterous and selfish opinions, not because he didn't check off enough resume boxes.
(btw, he's YLS and served as an assistant AG, and then had some federal appointment by reagan, and then was an federal appellate judge, so he literally does have all the resume boxes checked lol.)
it's still a noteworthy observation; even by its own ideas, liberalism fails to meet any standards when profits can be increased. This is a nebulous way, but having some fool there was useful over someone who was ready and could do the job right.
again, it's factually inaccurate that he was unqualified by some liberal standard. he had an excellent pedigree. (other than his personal life, uh, improprieties.)
but more importantly, no, it's immaterial. there is not a shortage of gorsuches or kavanaughs that could be assigned to the bench.
Counterpoint: Every large institutional system needs some level of bureaucracy and experienced bureaucrats provide systematic value that goes beyond their ideological political positions. Sometimes you just need the trains to run on time.
Thomas is awful in a way even Scalia wasn't, because he degrades the constraints that the judiciary is supposed to have on state power. He creates large gray areas that only ever favor far-right groups. His opinions enflame conflict rather than resolving it, and always in a way that facilitates more fascist tendencies in the lower tiers of the bureaucracy.
A big part of that comes from his inability (or disinterest) in the functional role of his appointed position. In a saner world, guys like him would simply be removed from office once they'd laid bare their incompetence and incoherence. But in America, we let leadership serve indefinitely, just so long as they've sufficiently entrenched themselves against the opposition.