Jump to content

Talk:Clarence Thomas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asabiyya (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 29 March 2022 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Vital article


Another example of Wikipedia editors bias

It is quite suspicious that Ruth Bader Ginsburg article is protected and that one isn't.. The last edit is shockingly racist and it is just incredible that no one have removed it yet..

I agree it should be protected. Im trying as hard as i can to remove those comments, but the trolls just come and undo them right away

I have contributed small amounts to Wikipedia. However I recently read an opinion page that said Wikipedia is biased to the left. Then I saw clear evidence of that in the article on Clarence Thomas we are his wife Virginia was said to have “touted” some thing and “called herself” an ambassador. These are clearly words that mock. Gettysburg21 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The UPI source said Virginia Thomas "has opened a consulting firm and CALLS HERSELF [emphasis added] an ambassador to new U.S. Congress members and the Tea Party." https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/05/Justice-Thomass-wife-turns-to-lobbying/99181296885303/ Wikipedia was using information as given in a reliable source.

Comparing it to the Ruth Ginsburg page in terms of bias is inappropriate. Marty Ginsburg was a law professor, and Virginia Thomas is a pundit, lobbyist, and political consultant. One teaches and professes, the other opines and touts. It's the nature of their jobs, not an insult and not reflective of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamoatlarge (talkcontribs) 06:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

delete "because four votes are required to hear an appeal,"

because it out of place and unnecessary and also because it is not true--as a matter of CUSTOM and PRACTICE the WHOLE COURT generally certifies an appeal when at least 4 justices would grant it, but any action of the Court (other than emergency acts that are left to the Circuit Justice or the Chief, who can then refer it to the whole Court) requires the presence of a quorum (7) and requires a majority of those present, hence, when the usual 8 or 9 are present, 5 justices not 4. Also, it may be that the Chief Justice on their own can certify an appeal. That has never been tested because, as a practical matter, if the CHIEF wants to hear an appeal, three other justices are usually forthcoming. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment history

Thomas is a highly controversial person, and the most hated justice on the court, before and after his nomination. There should be a "controversies" section in this page.

Similar to Kavanaugh, Thomas's appointment was controversial due to a history of sexual misconduct. There is a page dedicated to that process.

Thomas's history of behavioral problems in his personal life is important to understanding his character and opinions. It should be featured more prominently in this article. 2604:CA00:10C:3FC7:0:0:E61:A7C1 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have no WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS anywhere, if I can help it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seditionist wife Virginia

Now is the time to state Clarence’s wife, Virginia, as a radical right wing seditionist. 184.23.236.250 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the story about his wife's texts. Perhaps controversies relating to his wife and potential conflicts of interest should have their own section, as this probably goes beyond "personal life". Endwise (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Thomas has been the senior associate justice, the current longest-serving member of the Court, with a tenure of 30 years, 157 days as of March 29, 2022.

- Request to add current to showcase that he is not the longest serving ever, but the longest serving current member. Asabiyya (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]