Clarence Thomas, Silent but Sure
By LINDA GREENHOUSELet’s hear it for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Notice that I did not say let’s hear from Justice Thomas. February 22 was the fourth anniversary of the last time Justice Thomas asked a question during an argument. His silent presence on the bench has evolved into a weirdly compelling example of performance art.But my point is not to scold him for his obvious disdain of the ritual of appellate argument, an exercise that all the other justices appear to find if not always enlightening, at least worth the effort. (The newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, has thrown herself into the arguments with gusto, asking pertinent questions with penetrating follow-up).
Rather, I want to call attention to the impressive consistency of the views that he actually expresses in his written opinions — consistency being so unusual a commodity these days that it shouldn’t go unremarked on those rare occasions when an individual holding high public office displays it.
<snip>
The subject is prison, specifically the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” In February 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. McMillian that a prisoner need not have suffered a “significant injury” in order to pursue a lawsuit against prison officials for the use of excessive force. Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who brought that case, had been kicked and punched by three guards while he was handcuffed and shackled. He suffered bruises, swelling and loosened teeth, injuries that a federal appeals court, in dismissing his lawsuit, deemed so minor as to be beneath the notice of the Eighth Amendment.
read the entire well crafted piece here
and be reminded just how grateful we are to have Obama in office for when the time comes to replace the Neanderthal judges one at a time
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/clarence-thomas-silent-but-sure/