I can't even imagine the Supreme Court even wanting to share a room with this guy, let alone let him speak in front of them.
It's not unlikely that halfway through his debate he starts foaming at the mouth and flinging his poo in every direction.

Well, if it's like his disciplinary hearing, he'll just throw a tantrum and walk out. I'm sure the SCOTUS would love that.

There is only one possible explanation...Jack Thompson is a zombie.

The man has been declared sane twice after psychologic tests.
De 1st time was in the early 90s and was due to simular reasons.
He was having problems with the bar and vice versa.
The bar ordered him to undergo a psych test.
The 2nd 1 was last year and was initiated by him: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/08/21/jack-thompson-cleared-by-shrink
Authorities should to some legal investigation into that shrink..
J.T. can't possibly be declared sane.

Jack Thompson is an embarasment to his profession and to the rest of the human population. Any court that gives him any measure of power should be summarily executed and a new court put in its place.
The man is far too irrational about his pet issues. Instead of opting to have rational discourse with gamers and devs, he decides to villify the entire industry and hobby. That sort of behavior puts anyone on the defense. It's people like him who make harmless things (marijuana) illegal while there are far worse legal drugs on the market.

Quite frankly: Why should I care?
That guy's target audience are people who would have burned witches had they been born a few years earlier. They'll always look for something to be outraged about, no matter what and no matter who leads them. Gay rights, black power, violence in entertainment, moral decay, science vs. the bible ... they'll always find something,

No one should be even concerned. He's totally irrelevant and with his disbarring finalised, the insignificant credibility he had is shot to bits.

What's a concern is that he always found politicians who take him seriously, either directly or through others.
That goes for both democratic and republican, most famous of which is Hillary Clinton.
An example: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/02/11/utah-legislator-officially-submits-jack-thompson-video-game-bill

And there's that ongoing mess in Utah, too. Although, Thompson's recent (read: last couple of years) antics have driven some of his former supporters away. Other groups (not necessarily cordial with Thompson in the first place) have had to be far more clear that they do not endorse his philosophy or behavior at all. He's becoming increasingly toxic, to the point that it probably will start biting people in the rear if they continue to support him. Oh, and there is that little former lawyer bit. Even if his disbarring does get overturned -- I'll be watching for concurrent news of a blizzard ripping through hell, by the way -- a lot of the behavior that led to that point is public record. Easy to reference on a moment's notice.
(The legislation in Utah? I expect that to get nasty...especially at a time where states -- and more importantly, their taxpayers -- really can't afford the extra burden of legal fees for unconstitutional laws getting dismantled. But then again, I'm not from Utah. Then again again, unconstitutional legislation is...what...0 for 9 so far?)
And if you look at the bottom of this, looks like the wording could be interpreted to mean movie theaters as well. Heh, wonder if the MPAA is gonna take this sitting down?

That Utah bill has already been ruled unconstitutional.
It still beats me that people who choose to have children but are clearly uncapable of raising them, blame others (in this case the goverment and video game publishers and sellers) for their failure.
I can only hope their children learn from their parent's mistakes.
With help from this book if necessary.

Or maybe parents could read this book

Thank you for reminding me I need to try and borrow that via interlibrary loan. I have a young son (he turns 3 soon), and my husband and I are starting to take very careful consideration of the things he's exposed to in games, movies, et cetera. (Not that we weren't choosy before, but we're more so now that he's getting older and has more autonomy. I'd like for him to gravitate toward appropriate content of his own accord by having that baseline already in place.)
As parents, that's our right and responsibility...and few things make me as angry as individuals or groups that want to take that away from us. And it goes both ways -- just because someone decides that something is appropriate for my son's age bracket doesn't mean I or my husband agree. I question the value of a LOT of the pre-preschool programming on PBS, for example; frankly, I believe in not dumbing down or talking down to kids.* Ditto for a lot of the 'educational' games out there. If we were forced to restrict content to things deemed 'appropriate' for his age group...well, in short, it wouldn't be appropriate for him. Or for a lot of kids in his age bracket, for that matter.**
_
*Not to be confused with introducing concepts inappropriate for a child's maturity level -- but that's also something that's highly variable from child to child, and you can't one-size-fits-all it. All the more reason for parents to have the power of choice in media.
**Yeah, I have a really strong distaste for programming aimed at the youngest viewers. At least it's a moot issue in this household, for various reasons.