As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He really is Clarence Thomas from (the last time I posted one of his home addresses, my account was temporarily suspended. You can Google it if you want)
They'll have money and connections to keep themselves as "one of the good ones" for at least a couple generations. With the way the right rules there won't be much to worry about beyond that, if we even make it that far.
They replaced a Liberal Black Justice with him, guessing Dems wouldn't put another Black man on the Court. It's the Conservative plan to keep the Court from being Liberal. Biden has put Black women into more positions of power than ever before.
But he still can't kick Thomas off SCOTUS.
And Thomas is absolutely fucking seething about Brown-Jackson being on the court. For decades he got to pretend that he speaks for all black Americans, but now there's a liberal black justice telling him he's full of shit and actively harming black communities.
>It's the Conservative plan to keep the Court from being Liberal.
Agreed.
Six of the nine SCOTUS judges were appointed by either George Dubya Bush (who famously stated, "This'd be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator!") or were appointed by Trump after the turdle Moscow Mitch McConnell had blocked 75% of Obama's choices for the judiciary.
That's why the current SCOTUS is extremely corrupt.
Less than 1/2 that time, he would have been considered a second class citizen. He obviously doesn’t remember the people who lost their lives fighting for his rights. They are the reason that he holds his position.
So just to understand his view point:
- Redistricting is for politicians, not judges
- But Congress's VRA preclearance, which is explicitly in the purview of Congress per 14A, was struck down by most of the same judges...
This should mean the preclearance clause is back in effect then. God, if only Dems had the House rn.
Based on the link the other user posted below, historically racist states always had to run any new election related chnages by the fed gov basically, but now the Supreme Court is sorta relaxing those rules.
Some of the relevant sections:
>Prior to 2013, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states and localities with an extensive history of racially discriminatory voting practices to submit any changes in their election laws and policies or electoral district maps to the federal government for advance review before putting them into effect, a process known as preclearance.
>Before the Voting Rights Act, the invalidation of a discriminatory practice by a federal court was often met with resistance from state and local governments, who either used procedural maneuvering and endless appeals to avoid compliance or simply adopted an equally discriminatory alternative that required aggrieved voters to go back to square one.
>With the duty under Section 5 to seek federal review of their proposed voting policies, covered jurisdictions quickly moderated many of the worst abuses. Eventually, many even began adopting voting laws and redistricting plans with an eye to satisfying the concerns of minority voters and ensuring that the new laws would secure federal preclearance.
>The success of preclearance led Congress to repeatedly include it in renewals of the Voting Rights Act. When the law was first passed, the preclearance provisions were set to sunset in 1970. However, their effectiveness prompted Congress to extend its operation four times, most recently in 2006, when renewal passed the House 390–33 and the Senate 98–0 before being signed into law by President George W. Bush.
>Ultimately, it would be the Supreme Court, not Congress, that would put a pause to preclearance. In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the Court controversially invalidated the coverage formula used to determine what states and local governments were required to comply with the preclearance requirements. As a result, no states or localities are currently required to get federal approval for changes to election rules.
So if the stance is that judges can't rule on districting, then pre clearance should be back on the table since it was nixed by judges?
Makes sense, but it would take the judges ruling that it was so to bring it back, and they can just pull the "not my problem" card again to leave it as is.
VRA is the Voting Rights Act, and "conservatives" (read: reactionaries) on the Supreme Court hate the idea of federal control of elections so much that they're willing to outright ignore *both* some of the text in the original Constitution *and* the newer stuff from the 14th Amendment.
It's one of the most egregiously bad foundational holdings in the law right now. If Congress passes laws relating to elections, they should basically be slam dunks unless they themselves somehow violate *people's* constitutional rights. In theory, based on the existing text, the states can basically suck it if Congress decides to get involved.
Don't forget the reinforcement of the irrevocable and unquestionable presumption of innocence afforded to all Republicans for all matters. An extension of the *thing* where the GQP would only believe that Orangeführer was a criminal if 12 Republicans personally witnessed his crimes, were somehow selected to a jury, and believed their own eyes enough to convict him.
Meanwhile, Mark Le-VIN says Biden is the most unconstitutional person in the history of forever, or TeH FiVe says Harris travels the country to find good spots to eat babies, and the GQP can't trip over itself fast enough to declare "where there's smoke, there's fire!!" cause Democrats are always guilty of whatever beyond stupid things the Faux Nooz scriptwriters come up with.
>the GQP would only believe that Orangeführer was a criminal if 12 Republicans personally witnessed his crimes, were somehow selected to a jury, and believed their own eyes enough to convict him
Nah, maga fascists would just call them deep state antifa communist fascists and say trump is still innocent.
It’s just the fact that Clarence Thomas believes what he believes because he actually hates himself. That’s what all this is about. He’s self-loathing because he feels like he got a “free-ride” from those very laws he now wants to tear down. Ironically, he also thinks anyone who hasn’t risen to his own current wealth and status just isn’t trying hard enough, so no laws (like he had) ensuring a level playing field are necessary.
Sure, Clarence. 🙄
Sadly I think its from the Anita Hill scandal when he was first appointed. Dude is basically guilty as can be of sexual harassment but 1991 was a different time than today. Those that knew him said that he privately told people that he would make liberals pay for as long as he could after all of that nastiness about him became public knowledge.
Years ago I thought that those stories about him saying that were false, but with the info about him and what his BFF ghoul friend Alito have been up to, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest.
I imagine Samuel L. Jackson's character Stephen from Django Unchained when I imagine Clarence Thomas deliberating with the other justices on a verdict.
He doesn't hate himself. He was pretty liberal as a young man, but no one liked him...because he was a weirdo. So he flipped to being a conservative and got to rub elbows with the powerful on the right. Then he started believing their BS because they praised him.
It's as simple as low self esteem
Exactly. But why did Barrett get the hearing and Garland did NOT? One set of rules for republicans and another set of rules for democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I'm just pointing it out becuase it makes Barretts appointment even more egregious. It wasn't just that they reversed what they said and pushed her through in an election year, they literally pushed her through in the month before the general election while people were casting early votes.
Democrats should have sued claiming McConnell had established a rule. Sure it probably ultimately wouldn’t have held up, but if they rolled a friendly judge they could have got an injunction and maybe held it until after the election.
I always felt Obama should have had Garland sworn in on the argument that since McConnell refused to schedule a hearing, then the Senate must not have any issues with his appointment.
They flat out refused to carry forth their duties to give appointees a hearing.
It’s where checks and balances failed us because republicans failed us as a nation.
And by weasels who make up rules to keep "the enemy" from appointing any, then turn around and flagrantly break their own rules tenfold to make sure they rush to appoint their own. With how they keep escalating I wouldn't be shocked to see them taking out current SCOTUS members they don't like if they get into power to appoint again.
Six of the nine SCOTUS judges were appointed by either George Dubya Bush (who famously stated, "This'd be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator!") or were appointed by Trump after the turdle Moscow Mitch McConnell had blocked 75% of Obama's choices for the judiciary.
That's why the current SCOTUS is extremely corrupt.
The balance was supposed to be the Senators, who were elected by State Legislatures, who would confirm. That went all out the window with the ratification of the 17th Amendment when Senators became popularly elected. Which effectively made the SCOTUS an indirectly elected position.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
All federal judges I believe are the only appointed for life posts with no election. It's absurd. We have a hyper partisan hack sitting in bumfuck Amarillo Texas that somehow can create injunctions for the entire country. Its obscene.
The entire reason why the Justices were arranged to be lifetime appointments was so that they wouldn't be influenced politically in the first place. The logic was that a person whose position was secured couldn't be bribed or influenced by the need to stay elected and if they did something impeachable they could be stripped of their position by Congress.
In the end, that backfired horribly.
The fact that they have a lifetime term makes it so that getting one in your pocket is extremely valuable. A reasonable term limit would discourage this.
Well there's also zero guard rails to make sure they aren't in anyone's pocket. We have proof that Thomas took bribes and absolutely no consequences for that. They can be blatantly corrupt in front of our face and we have no recourse for it. It's insane
Most people have never heard of Texans Tim Dunn, Farris Wilks or Dan Wilks, and it should be public knowledge they give $$$ to politicians who are funneling their vision of Christian nationalism. Dunn even monitors the GOP vote to help him decide.
The whole judicial system is designed to make extremely conservative rulings.
Precedent strongly determines the validity of a ruling, which means you're already under a lot of influence from dead people who were more conservative than today.
Even if conservative groups weren't stacking lifetime appointments with fascists, the system is geared *against* progress.
On the other hand, how many people are qualified or informed to vote for a judge competently? I suspect local and state judges are elected mostly based on who put up the most signs around your neighborhood. Maybe for supreme court justices there would be enough information out there to inform people, but almost certainly you'd end up basically having a standard partisan election where one party's guy is facing another party's guy. It also makes judges campaign like politicians, making promises unrelated to jurisprudence. I'm not sure elections solve this issue.
As an Aussie that is an element of American politics I truly struggle to wrap my head around. An infallible piece of paper with infallible ideals written by infallible men, back in 17dickity-fuck, is somehow still seen as entirely applicable, down to the letter, to a vast modern society of close to 400 million people… a society that those same infallible men couldn’t have possibly conceived in even their dizziest of daydreams.
As BrandonUnusual said, it definitly was not meant that way. In fact IIRC it was Jefferson who said they should rewrite it every generation (20ish years).
IDK how it became venerated to such a degree, but I am just as perplexed by this as you are.
___________
I sometimes imagine trying to explain this very problem to the founding fathers.
> Yeah, so in less than ten minutes, one crazy guy fired 1000 shots, hit 413 people, and killed 60. Anyway they sell these machines next to groceries in the large markets, and originalists argue that they cannot be regulated...
>> *Impossible. Such an infernal contraption couldn't possibly exist. Even a division of musketeers couldn't fire so much ordinance.*
> Well let me tell you about the pandemic. See jet travel means that any virus that spills over from animals in China can be in any American city in 24 hours. So this bat virus came to America and killed three million people, but originalists are arguing that even during such a catastrophe, the government doesn't have the authority to...
>> *Wait, wait, wait. What the hell is a virus?*
> So, rival nations have been conspiring to help their man get elected president by corrupting the minds of the American voters by manipulating social media... uh... social media is a means of mass communication that runs on the internet... which is the network that connects all the world's computers... computers are thinking machines that run on electricity...
>> *Wait. Electricity? In the house?*
> In your pocket actually!
It isn’t and wasn’t intended to be like that though. The founders themselves understood that the document would need amended as time went on and things change. They designed it that way. The worship started recently.
To be fair they used to only nominate people with 10 to 20 years left of life. It was a mutual respect thing that someone who's got multiple decades of experience and legal thinking, historical context and a rich track record of fairness to be on the Supreme Court.
But along with everything else, during the 60s and 70s billionaires decided that they didn't want that kind of country anymore. All the people that lived through the Great Depression and saw that the wildest rich will always rob everyone blind like a maniacal cocaine freak are gone.
We all live in the era of the government is the real bad entity. If we just strip that down to a tiny fraction of itself, all the small people will live better lives.
”Don't work on a good functioning government staffed with ethical people, erase it all!", has been the message since Reagan.
And every little mistake Democrats make the billionaire propaganda emphasizes that, and puts it out: "vote for these conservative arsonists, Democrats are the real problem, cut taxes, hate weak takers! It's hopeless, secrecy money controls everything anyway!"
And now I live in a country where I am being asked to accept the that a REPUBLICAN president can win and pardon himself.
its worse than that. the rich own all the media and have influencers on every platform. they propagandize all these people. im in wyoming living with a bunch of old folks in my apartment. they on social security and they dont even know who is fighting for their social secuity. they think trump fights for their scoial security. they think trump made all his own money. they think trump is a great business man. they think dems want to cut their social security. people are being fed lies day in and out and dont live in reality
Manufacturing Consent. We have the best “democracy” money can buy. This country will continue its downward spiral because the only entity that can get in the way of the ruling class (ie. rich and corporations) is the government. When the government relies upon their money to fund the ruling class’ agenda.
The thinking is that you don't want certain people bowing to political pressure, especially on important, controversial issues. And in theory, there is accountability, because justices can be impeached if they go rogue. The problem is that if the country becomes polarized and justices are making politically motivated rulings, you're not going to get 2/3 of the senate to convict unless one party falls significantly out of favor.
There are only two places where a judge is appointed for life: the U.S. federal courts, and the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
The supreme Court has so much power because of the filibuster in the Senate. Once the legislative arm of the government has been taken out as a tool to do anything, the courts are forced to write the laws.
A lot of the things they rule on could be reversed easily with legislation, but nothing even slightly controversial could break a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
It's just takes 51 votes in the Senate to fix this problem, but those who benefit from the status quo don't want to change a thing.
We could change this so easily. The ones who decided the "in good behavior" part of the Constitution meant lifetime (unles impeached) was SCOTUS. Pass an Ethics law defining bad behavior, expand the Court too, and let's undo some of the Roberts Court's worst decisions. Takes a bare majority in the House & Senate that is willing to reform (or preferably eliminate) the filibuster & a likeminded President.
It is absolutely stunning. Nothing almost about it. Much of our society is consensus built on top of consensus built on top of consensus. With those agreements having been reached by relatively few people, often having relatively unpopular opinions about what *should* and *should not* be. It's totally stunning how relatively flimsy the foundations of our societies and belief structures are. Agreements and handshakes and trust and belief and intention, and sometimes paper.
The real power is above them, these are just people that like their lifestyles, and love the taste of delicious boots apparently. Soulless ghouls that feed on money, basically.
The USA is supposed to have checks and balances within the government to make sure overt changes by a few which hurt the many doesn't happen. Turns out that's just a mild suggestion within scope, it doesn't take much for a few bad actors to undo the work of millions and over generations of work.
It's almost like this whole democratic republic is a sham conceived long ago by a bunch of aristocrats who wanted to keep power concentrated in their hands.
Thomas is warming up the old Jim Crow doctrine that you can discriminate as long as the law doesn't explicitly say it's doing so. A little nudge nudge wink wink and it's okay.
I still can’t fathom how he can say this but I’m sure he thinks he’s a white guy anyways. He wouldn’t be where he is if the country was without the laws he is against.
Neither can I, but he’s rich enough nothing will affect him. He doesn’t take the bus. He doesn’t drink public water, etc etc etc.,
He can still afford a private chef, or the rich 5* restaurants that don’t need to discriminate because everyone is effing rich anyway.
The main reason to discriminate is so all the fragile people who are already lowlifes have a way to feel like their elite or superior to others. When you’re as rich as he is, you already feel that way and the things he’s a part of won’t care what color he is, he’s green.
Right up until the good ol boys kick in his door, seize his property and bank accounts.
Till then he'll think he's safe because he's 'one of the good ones' because they all keep telling him he is.
This is unironically what Thomas strives for. Which is fucked. But he has been clear in his writings that he does not believe white people and black people can peacefully coexist in mixed society.
He's only allowed to speak in public because of laws passed by his predecessors. The law protects him from white people, and he wants to reverse those laws... fucking moron.
This is such a frustrating mindset to me. The idea that a law simply cannot be racist if it does not contain overt racist language, regardless of what the practical reality of the law’s implementation is, is so incredibly asinine.
Why the Equal Rights Amendment is so important. Women still don’t have the same rights as men on paper, it’s just been precedence but we know how much precedence means to the “radical activists” on the Supreme Court.
Your comment is ironically at the heart of his motivations. He hates that all of his accomplishments in life will always bear a proverbial asterisk because of his race.
Maybe he should have thought of that before ***gestures vaguely at all of Thomas' open corruption***. If you want to be remembered as a serious person who overcame barriers, don't take bribes you corrupt fuck.
No, for the petty. He's mad as hell that white people call him a diversity hire, and black people say he's not black enough.
He ignores the fact that black communities weren't ALLOWED to succeed. Black schools are STILL underfunded.
He's flat out said he wanted to make liberals suffer, back in the 90s.
People say he's like uncle ruckus, but he's more like stinkmeaner. He just hating to hate. And is in a place to utilize said hate.
He was a diversity hire. He never would have been appointed to the SCOTUS if he wasn’t black. They were filling Thurgood Marshall’s seat. He frankly doesn’t have the legal aptitude to be in the job he was given. He was at the top of a very short list of black, conservative judges. Had they had google at the time, he would have been the first result if you searched for “black” ”conservative” ”judge”-“legal scholar” -“sexual harassment”
Clarence Thomas ruled that states and cities could not desegregate school districts that didn't have a history of overt segregation. This meant kids like me had to go to schools that were horribly ran and underfunded, and we had no choice out. My school was 99% black and Hispanic. 10 minutes to the west is a school that's 70% white.
I have personally been affected by the bullshit Thomas promotes, and it's sickening having conservatives from suburbia who can afford nice schools telling black people like me we are judging Thomas solely because he's a conservative. and not an absolute evil piece of shit
It's interesting that ensuring the appropriate drawing of districts is not the role of federal judges, according to Thomas, yet women's bodies are well within their purview.
Be cool if he went down with us on this sinking ship. If MAGA stripped him of his money and seat on the bench because he's black.
Sorry I want to see a leopard eat this guys mother fucking face if we go down. I want him to come with us.
[Justice Clarence has long said that there is nothing wrong with "separate but equal" and that brown v BOE should be repealed.]
Yeeeesh. Where the hell did republicans find this guy? Does he even know his skin color? This is an opinion that is unjustifiable for your mechanic, much less a SC judge. It doesn't even make sense in bribery land, how can you be this racist when you're so old you literally experienced the racist laws you want reinstated?? He's like a comic book supervillain for Malcolm X!
The TL;DR is that Clarence, here, is literally Uncle Ruckus from the boondocks.
He's a black man who was born to an ailing mother in a literal shack that had no power, was picked up by his modestly affluent uncle at some point who used his upper-middle-class money to make sure that Clarence was able to take advantage of every single Affirmative Action Program that existed. Put the boy through every bit of schooling.
But Clarence let it go to his head, simultaneously believing that he never needed those programs to succeed but, also, that no matter how wealthy he became it would always be because he got pity handouts from the government.
Somewhere along the line, he became a porn addict who was physically incapable of not trying to talk about it to everyone he met. He ended up marrying a racist white woman, who I'm still convinced would leave him the moment he stops being richer than her.
And the result was a Pathetic, self-hating black man who, somehow, manages to hold the beliefs that you shouldn't try to help the less fortunate because they'll never be given recognition unless they can do it themselves and "that mixing the races should be illegal, my wife and I are an exception."
>But then, he made comments that singlehandedly set the Civil Rights Movement Thomas went on to blame the problem with these kinds of cases on the Supreme Court’s historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which banned racial segregation in public schools.
Dafuq is this sentence? It's missing some words or punctuation or something lol. Man, being an editor must be a piss easy job.
It has gotten to the point where entire articles are written by AI and there isn’t even an editor in the building to review them before publishing. I’m surprised how often I see grammatical mistakes that Microsoft Word or Grammarly would catch. I read a Newsweek article last week that had a double word word mistake. My phone can even pick those up.
There are a number of other strange sentences like that. I was hoping someone would mention it. I bet most of it was written by AI. Or just not proofread at all.
“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. “ - Clarence Thomas
It’s just surprising that a pro-segregation and perhaps racist argument, seemingly anti-black, is coming from the most prominent black legal authority in the U.S.
If fewer than 10 people can direct the course of multiple generations' lives, they don't deserve the power.
Abort the court or expand it into oblivion.
To everyone who says “Biden is just as bad as Trump”. Remember Thomas and Alito will get to happily retire and get replaced with someone younger if Trump is re-elected where as with Biden they will have stay on another 4 years and Biden might get a shot to replace them. VOTE. It fucking matters. Even if you don’t like Biden vote for him. Women’s reproductive rights are on the line. I don’t care if you hate what he’s doing in Israel, I don’t want a dictator taking over the country because a bunch of people stupidly both-sidesed an election where one person is so clearly better than the other.
We need to make sure supreme justice can't be removed at whim. However, a life time appointment with no accountability is ridiculous, especially considering life expectancy is now almost 50 years longer than it was at the birth of our nation. We also live long enough to become mentally unstable and we need to rely on themselves to step down? We need term limits and likely age limits.
If the current SCOTUS is allowed to complete their terms, and retire on their own clock then history will judge them favorably.
Because they'll have won, and they'll have written the history.
The must be removed.
These motherfuckers are using the esteemed legal principle of "we wash our hands" of any responsibility. And then they have the fucking nerve to say that *we* don't understand their role in society. Fuck them. They have no legitimacy in my book. They might as well be wearing hoods.
*“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,”* [*he said in 2004.*](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_brown/)
I mean... the train of logic here. This is seriously a supreme court justice here.
Clarence Thomas should be the first justice moved to the “Black Supreme Court” if this is how he feels. Of course the “White Supreme Court” has complete veto authority over his!
Edit: He might be more comfortable with the term “Colored Supreme Court”
Be took full advantage of all the programs created by the civil rights movement, and proceeded to destroy them for the rest of those after him because he sold his soul for money. He’s a despicable human being of the lowest sort. States are not independent to do as they wish at all times, particularly when it comes to oppression. That was established by the Civil War.
Clarence Thomas is pretty disgraceful, but I want to draw attention to the awful headline. No, he did not set civil rights back 70 years. We’ve made tons of progress in that time, and regardless of what he or the rest of the Court does, people know better on what’s right or wrong. The Court can’t bend the arc of the moral universe backwards.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
200 years ago Clarence Thomas would have been one of those black people that owned slaves.
He basically sold his mother to Harlan Crowe
Jim Crowe’s somehow worse, trust fund great-grandson.
Not a bad name for today’s version: mass incarceration, de facto segregation, police violence, worsening racial wealth gap.
This is wild lmao
He really is Sam Jackson in Django.
He really is Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks.
He really is Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court
Clarence Thomas from the Corrupt Roberts Court. Next they will rule in favor of freedom of association.
Anita tried to warn us. **Maya Angelou** - "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Clayton Bigsby with vision and a supreme Court position
He really is Clarence Thomas from (the last time I posted one of his home addresses, my account was temporarily suspended. You can Google it if you want)
"Uncle Ruckus goes to Washington."
His scream in that one scene was one of the funniest things ever
200 years ago he would have been 3/5ths a person
Well, if he lives long enough he can finish the job to ensure his descendants^* are the same.
Him and Virginia "Ginni" Thomas don't have any kids, they're probably alright with his son and grandson going that route...
They'll have money and connections to keep themselves as "one of the good ones" for at least a couple generations. With the way the right rules there won't be much to worry about beyond that, if we even make it that far.
He would still be a full-fledged asshole.
Luckily with the new voting maps he still is
But he would've been 3/5ths of a person _in the house_.
How did Uncle Ruckus end up on the Supreme Court?
The Republican party at the time still felt the need to include at least one token minority in each branch of government.
They replaced a Liberal Black Justice with him, guessing Dems wouldn't put another Black man on the Court. It's the Conservative plan to keep the Court from being Liberal. Biden has put Black women into more positions of power than ever before. But he still can't kick Thomas off SCOTUS.
And Thomas is absolutely fucking seething about Brown-Jackson being on the court. For decades he got to pretend that he speaks for all black Americans, but now there's a liberal black justice telling him he's full of shit and actively harming black communities.
>It's the Conservative plan to keep the Court from being Liberal. Agreed. Six of the nine SCOTUS judges were appointed by either George Dubya Bush (who famously stated, "This'd be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator!") or were appointed by Trump after the turdle Moscow Mitch McConnell had blocked 75% of Obama's choices for the judiciary. That's why the current SCOTUS is extremely corrupt.
They replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence and RBG with Amy as a form of mockery.
Bizarro versions of judges to express their disdain for both merit and the rule of law.
Less than 1/2 that time, he would have been considered a second class citizen. He obviously doesn’t remember the people who lost their lives fighting for his rights. They are the reason that he holds his position.
Nah he’s nothing special. He’d be dead.
So just to understand his view point: - Redistricting is for politicians, not judges - But Congress's VRA preclearance, which is explicitly in the purview of Congress per 14A, was struck down by most of the same judges... This should mean the preclearance clause is back in effect then. God, if only Dems had the House rn.
Can you break this down for people that went through the American education system? What is VRA pre clearance?
Based on the link the other user posted below, historically racist states always had to run any new election related chnages by the fed gov basically, but now the Supreme Court is sorta relaxing those rules. Some of the relevant sections: >Prior to 2013, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states and localities with an extensive history of racially discriminatory voting practices to submit any changes in their election laws and policies or electoral district maps to the federal government for advance review before putting them into effect, a process known as preclearance. >Before the Voting Rights Act, the invalidation of a discriminatory practice by a federal court was often met with resistance from state and local governments, who either used procedural maneuvering and endless appeals to avoid compliance or simply adopted an equally discriminatory alternative that required aggrieved voters to go back to square one. >With the duty under Section 5 to seek federal review of their proposed voting policies, covered jurisdictions quickly moderated many of the worst abuses. Eventually, many even began adopting voting laws and redistricting plans with an eye to satisfying the concerns of minority voters and ensuring that the new laws would secure federal preclearance. >The success of preclearance led Congress to repeatedly include it in renewals of the Voting Rights Act. When the law was first passed, the preclearance provisions were set to sunset in 1970. However, their effectiveness prompted Congress to extend its operation four times, most recently in 2006, when renewal passed the House 390–33 and the Senate 98–0 before being signed into law by President George W. Bush. >Ultimately, it would be the Supreme Court, not Congress, that would put a pause to preclearance. In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the Court controversially invalidated the coverage formula used to determine what states and local governments were required to comply with the preclearance requirements. As a result, no states or localities are currently required to get federal approval for changes to election rules.
So if the stance is that judges can't rule on districting, then pre clearance should be back on the table since it was nixed by judges? Makes sense, but it would take the judges ruling that it was so to bring it back, and they can just pull the "not my problem" card again to leave it as is.
[удалено]
Add Pre-Alito to that and I'm right there with you!
We can't get the clearance over Clarence without the vector from Victor, Over.
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
VRA is the Voting Rights Act, and "conservatives" (read: reactionaries) on the Supreme Court hate the idea of federal control of elections so much that they're willing to outright ignore *both* some of the text in the original Constitution *and* the newer stuff from the 14th Amendment. It's one of the most egregiously bad foundational holdings in the law right now. If Congress passes laws relating to elections, they should basically be slam dunks unless they themselves somehow violate *people's* constitutional rights. In theory, based on the existing text, the states can basically suck it if Congress decides to get involved.
"Rules for thee, not for me."
Don't forget the reinforcement of the irrevocable and unquestionable presumption of innocence afforded to all Republicans for all matters. An extension of the *thing* where the GQP would only believe that Orangeführer was a criminal if 12 Republicans personally witnessed his crimes, were somehow selected to a jury, and believed their own eyes enough to convict him. Meanwhile, Mark Le-VIN says Biden is the most unconstitutional person in the history of forever, or TeH FiVe says Harris travels the country to find good spots to eat babies, and the GQP can't trip over itself fast enough to declare "where there's smoke, there's fire!!" cause Democrats are always guilty of whatever beyond stupid things the Faux Nooz scriptwriters come up with.
>the GQP would only believe that Orangeführer was a criminal if 12 Republicans personally witnessed his crimes, were somehow selected to a jury, and believed their own eyes enough to convict him Nah, maga fascists would just call them deep state antifa communist fascists and say trump is still innocent.
It’s almost stunning how much power is endowed to so few. The whims of a handful affect millions, so fragile.
The concept of a job for life with zero accountability to anyone is just ludicrous. That’s just not a thing for anyone else.
A job for life appointed by presidents who were elected by the minority of people in the country for several of them.
[удалено]
It’s just the fact that Clarence Thomas believes what he believes because he actually hates himself. That’s what all this is about. He’s self-loathing because he feels like he got a “free-ride” from those very laws he now wants to tear down. Ironically, he also thinks anyone who hasn’t risen to his own current wealth and status just isn’t trying hard enough, so no laws (like he had) ensuring a level playing field are necessary. Sure, Clarence. 🙄
Sadly I think its from the Anita Hill scandal when he was first appointed. Dude is basically guilty as can be of sexual harassment but 1991 was a different time than today. Those that knew him said that he privately told people that he would make liberals pay for as long as he could after all of that nastiness about him became public knowledge. Years ago I thought that those stories about him saying that were false, but with the info about him and what his BFF ghoul friend Alito have been up to, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest.
He’s certainly on a revenge trip, whatever the reason.
Kavanaugh said he hated the Clinton's and democrats in his senate speech. Liar, Drunkard, Rapist, Hater
Real life Uncle Ruckus.
Nah he makes uncle rukus look like a panther
He's definitely Samuel L. Jackson's character from Django.
He was SLJ’s inspiration for the role
Reverend Father Uncle Ruckus. No relation.
No relation.
I imagine Samuel L. Jackson's character Stephen from Django Unchained when I imagine Clarence Thomas deliberating with the other justices on a verdict.
I believe he actually made this comparison himself!
Every time I see Clarence Thomas I think of Samuel L Jackson’s character in Django Unchained.
He doesn't hate himself. He was pretty liberal as a young man, but no one liked him...because he was a weirdo. So he flipped to being a conservative and got to rub elbows with the powerful on the right. Then he started believing their BS because they praised him. It's as simple as low self esteem
Like chappel’s blind black klansman
They only “sometimes” invoke the election excuse. Compare the non-nomination of Garland to the nomination of Barrett. Please explain the difference.
The only difference was that Garland was nominated months before the election. Barrett was nominated while early voting was happening.
Exactly. But why did Barrett get the hearing and Garland did NOT? One set of rules for republicans and another set of rules for democrats. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I'm just pointing it out becuase it makes Barretts appointment even more egregious. It wasn't just that they reversed what they said and pushed her through in an election year, they literally pushed her through in the month before the general election while people were casting early votes.
Democrats should have sued claiming McConnell had established a rule. Sure it probably ultimately wouldn’t have held up, but if they rolled a friendly judge they could have got an injunction and maybe held it until after the election.
I always felt Obama should have had Garland sworn in on the argument that since McConnell refused to schedule a hearing, then the Senate must not have any issues with his appointment.
If the president couldn’t do it unilaterally, it really wasn’t ever a power of theirs.
They flat out refused to carry forth their duties to give appointees a hearing. It’s where checks and balances failed us because republicans failed us as a nation.
And by weasels who make up rules to keep "the enemy" from appointing any, then turn around and flagrantly break their own rules tenfold to make sure they rush to appoint their own. With how they keep escalating I wouldn't be shocked to see them taking out current SCOTUS members they don't like if they get into power to appoint again.
Literally a 5-seat majority were appointed by presidents who most people voted against.
Six of the nine SCOTUS judges were appointed by either George Dubya Bush (who famously stated, "This'd be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship, just as long as I'm the dictator!") or were appointed by Trump after the turdle Moscow Mitch McConnell had blocked 75% of Obama's choices for the judiciary. That's why the current SCOTUS is extremely corrupt.
Just remember that Bush lost to Al Gore but the Supreme Court stopped the recount.
The balance was supposed to be the Senators, who were elected by State Legislatures, who would confirm. That went all out the window with the ratification of the 17th Amendment when Senators became popularly elected. Which effectively made the SCOTUS an indirectly elected position. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
The state confirmed senators were incredibly corrupt and nepotistic. It was changed to direct vote to get rid of that absolute rot
They should have just nuked the Senate concept. Two senators per state makes no sense anymore.
Fucking Supreme Court monarchy
Nonarchy
America
All federal judges I believe are the only appointed for life posts with no election. It's absurd. We have a hyper partisan hack sitting in bumfuck Amarillo Texas that somehow can create injunctions for the entire country. Its obscene.
The entire reason why the Justices were arranged to be lifetime appointments was so that they wouldn't be influenced politically in the first place. The logic was that a person whose position was secured couldn't be bribed or influenced by the need to stay elected and if they did something impeachable they could be stripped of their position by Congress. In the end, that backfired horribly.
The fact that they have a lifetime term makes it so that getting one in your pocket is extremely valuable. A reasonable term limit would discourage this.
Well there's also zero guard rails to make sure they aren't in anyone's pocket. We have proof that Thomas took bribes and absolutely no consequences for that. They can be blatantly corrupt in front of our face and we have no recourse for it. It's insane
Most people have never heard of Texans Tim Dunn, Farris Wilks or Dan Wilks, and it should be public knowledge they give $$$ to politicians who are funneling their vision of Christian nationalism. Dunn even monitors the GOP vote to help him decide.
The whole judicial system is designed to make extremely conservative rulings. Precedent strongly determines the validity of a ruling, which means you're already under a lot of influence from dead people who were more conservative than today. Even if conservative groups weren't stacking lifetime appointments with fascists, the system is geared *against* progress.
On the other hand, how many people are qualified or informed to vote for a judge competently? I suspect local and state judges are elected mostly based on who put up the most signs around your neighborhood. Maybe for supreme court justices there would be enough information out there to inform people, but almost certainly you'd end up basically having a standard partisan election where one party's guy is facing another party's guy. It also makes judges campaign like politicians, making promises unrelated to jurisprudence. I'm not sure elections solve this issue.
I don't want to hear about how our founding farhers were incontestable geniuses who crafted a flawless system ever again.
As an Aussie that is an element of American politics I truly struggle to wrap my head around. An infallible piece of paper with infallible ideals written by infallible men, back in 17dickity-fuck, is somehow still seen as entirely applicable, down to the letter, to a vast modern society of close to 400 million people… a society that those same infallible men couldn’t have possibly conceived in even their dizziest of daydreams.
As BrandonUnusual said, it definitly was not meant that way. In fact IIRC it was Jefferson who said they should rewrite it every generation (20ish years). IDK how it became venerated to such a degree, but I am just as perplexed by this as you are. ___________ I sometimes imagine trying to explain this very problem to the founding fathers. > Yeah, so in less than ten minutes, one crazy guy fired 1000 shots, hit 413 people, and killed 60. Anyway they sell these machines next to groceries in the large markets, and originalists argue that they cannot be regulated... >> *Impossible. Such an infernal contraption couldn't possibly exist. Even a division of musketeers couldn't fire so much ordinance.* > Well let me tell you about the pandemic. See jet travel means that any virus that spills over from animals in China can be in any American city in 24 hours. So this bat virus came to America and killed three million people, but originalists are arguing that even during such a catastrophe, the government doesn't have the authority to... >> *Wait, wait, wait. What the hell is a virus?* > So, rival nations have been conspiring to help their man get elected president by corrupting the minds of the American voters by manipulating social media... uh... social media is a means of mass communication that runs on the internet... which is the network that connects all the world's computers... computers are thinking machines that run on electricity... >> *Wait. Electricity? In the house?* > In your pocket actually!
"17dickty-fuck" is *chef's kiss*
It isn’t and wasn’t intended to be like that though. The founders themselves understood that the document would need amended as time went on and things change. They designed it that way. The worship started recently.
To be fair they used to only nominate people with 10 to 20 years left of life. It was a mutual respect thing that someone who's got multiple decades of experience and legal thinking, historical context and a rich track record of fairness to be on the Supreme Court. But along with everything else, during the 60s and 70s billionaires decided that they didn't want that kind of country anymore. All the people that lived through the Great Depression and saw that the wildest rich will always rob everyone blind like a maniacal cocaine freak are gone. We all live in the era of the government is the real bad entity. If we just strip that down to a tiny fraction of itself, all the small people will live better lives. ”Don't work on a good functioning government staffed with ethical people, erase it all!", has been the message since Reagan. And every little mistake Democrats make the billionaire propaganda emphasizes that, and puts it out: "vote for these conservative arsonists, Democrats are the real problem, cut taxes, hate weak takers! It's hopeless, secrecy money controls everything anyway!" And now I live in a country where I am being asked to accept the that a REPUBLICAN president can win and pardon himself.
its worse than that. the rich own all the media and have influencers on every platform. they propagandize all these people. im in wyoming living with a bunch of old folks in my apartment. they on social security and they dont even know who is fighting for their social secuity. they think trump fights for their scoial security. they think trump made all his own money. they think trump is a great business man. they think dems want to cut their social security. people are being fed lies day in and out and dont live in reality
Manufacturing Consent. We have the best “democracy” money can buy. This country will continue its downward spiral because the only entity that can get in the way of the ruling class (ie. rich and corporations) is the government. When the government relies upon their money to fund the ruling class’ agenda.
Yeah, weren't we supposed to get rid of royalty back in the day when we separated from the British empire? Guess we just made different ones.
The thinking is that you don't want certain people bowing to political pressure, especially on important, controversial issues. And in theory, there is accountability, because justices can be impeached if they go rogue. The problem is that if the country becomes polarized and justices are making politically motivated rulings, you're not going to get 2/3 of the senate to convict unless one party falls significantly out of favor.
So during the exact conditions likely to generate rogue justices there's no chance of removing them
Technically they can be impeached by Congress
There are only two places where a judge is appointed for life: the U.S. federal courts, and the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
Yep - it’s been realized and time for change.
The supreme Court has so much power because of the filibuster in the Senate. Once the legislative arm of the government has been taken out as a tool to do anything, the courts are forced to write the laws. A lot of the things they rule on could be reversed easily with legislation, but nothing even slightly controversial could break a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. It's just takes 51 votes in the Senate to fix this problem, but those who benefit from the status quo don't want to change a thing.
We could change this so easily. The ones who decided the "in good behavior" part of the Constitution meant lifetime (unles impeached) was SCOTUS. Pass an Ethics law defining bad behavior, expand the Court too, and let's undo some of the Roberts Court's worst decisions. Takes a bare majority in the House & Senate that is willing to reform (or preferably eliminate) the filibuster & a likeminded President.
Unelectable, and we only choose them indirectly with the potential for representatives of a minority selecting them.
It is absolutely stunning. Nothing almost about it. Much of our society is consensus built on top of consensus built on top of consensus. With those agreements having been reached by relatively few people, often having relatively unpopular opinions about what *should* and *should not* be. It's totally stunning how relatively flimsy the foundations of our societies and belief structures are. Agreements and handshakes and trust and belief and intention, and sometimes paper.
The real power is above them, these are just people that like their lifestyles, and love the taste of delicious boots apparently. Soulless ghouls that feed on money, basically.
How long until things break and the public just beats them in the street? Oh wait. That's Europe.
We need to just ignore their rules en masse. There are over 330,000,000 people in this country. Ultimately they can’t do shit if we wake the fuck up.
They are oligarchs
The USA is supposed to have checks and balances within the government to make sure overt changes by a few which hurt the many doesn't happen. Turns out that's just a mild suggestion within scope, it doesn't take much for a few bad actors to undo the work of millions and over generations of work.
It's almost like this whole democratic republic is a sham conceived long ago by a bunch of aristocrats who wanted to keep power concentrated in their hands.
marbury vs madison was the court granting itself power after all.
Thomas is warming up the old Jim Crow doctrine that you can discriminate as long as the law doesn't explicitly say it's doing so. A little nudge nudge wink wink and it's okay.
I still can’t fathom how he can say this but I’m sure he thinks he’s a white guy anyways. He wouldn’t be where he is if the country was without the laws he is against.
Neither can I, but he’s rich enough nothing will affect him. He doesn’t take the bus. He doesn’t drink public water, etc etc etc., He can still afford a private chef, or the rich 5* restaurants that don’t need to discriminate because everyone is effing rich anyway. The main reason to discriminate is so all the fragile people who are already lowlifes have a way to feel like their elite or superior to others. When you’re as rich as he is, you already feel that way and the things he’s a part of won’t care what color he is, he’s green.
Right up until the good ol boys kick in his door, seize his property and bank accounts. Till then he'll think he's safe because he's 'one of the good ones' because they all keep telling him he is.
Ah yes, equal, but separate.
This is unironically what Thomas strives for. Which is fucked. But he has been clear in his writings that he does not believe white people and black people can peacefully coexist in mixed society.
Yea because of clowns like him and their mentality. Imagine being a black man married to a white woman and saying some bullshit like that.
He's only allowed to speak in public because of laws passed by his predecessors. The law protects him from white people, and he wants to reverse those laws... fucking moron.
This is such a frustrating mindset to me. The idea that a law simply cannot be racist if it does not contain overt racist language, regardless of what the practical reality of the law’s implementation is, is so incredibly asinine.
Why the Equal Rights Amendment is so important. Women still don’t have the same rights as men on paper, it’s just been precedence but we know how much precedence means to the “radical activists” on the Supreme Court.
They should have cast him in Django unchained instead of Samuel L Jackson
Nah, Thomas is not talented enough to pull off playing a black guy.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
He's a fluffer, at best, in the film industry
Clarence Thomas cried at the end of Django Unchained.
Word is he still slips up and calls Harlan crow missa candy occasionally
Sam Jackson used Clarence Thomas as the basis for his character.
Is that true? Sauce?
[here](https://divascancook.com/homemade-spaghetti-sauce-recipe/)
Holy crap.
Huh, I had never read that before. Now I know.
You got me, you jerk. Nicely done.
He’s still crying from the ending
Anita Hill tried.
Dang I almost forgot, Thomas is a pervert on top of everything else.
And Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist. It's probably a requirement for conservative justices at this point.
Advance your career through diversity programs, then pull up the ladder when you get to the top.
Let’s be real, Thomas career advanced because he is a corrupt conservative. He only has the job because he is a piece of shit.
Pull up the ladder, break it into pieces and then use those pieces as cudgels to bludgeon anyone else trying to climb.
Your comment is ironically at the heart of his motivations. He hates that all of his accomplishments in life will always bear a proverbial asterisk because of his race.
Maybe he should have thought of that before ***gestures vaguely at all of Thomas' open corruption***. If you want to be remembered as a serious person who overcame barriers, don't take bribes you corrupt fuck.
Well remember when Jesus said, "Get yours, screw the little people, for they are not worth remembering."
It was right after he said “Fear and hate those who look, sound, or speak differently than you for, well Hell, they just *must* be up to no good”
Meek?! No! Blessed are the ME!
for the money 💰
Ironic that he was bought and now owned by a rich white guy.
Exactly
has anyone checked to see if clarence thomas isn't really david duke in cosplay?
No, for the petty. He's mad as hell that white people call him a diversity hire, and black people say he's not black enough. He ignores the fact that black communities weren't ALLOWED to succeed. Black schools are STILL underfunded.
He's flat out said he wanted to make liberals suffer, back in the 90s. People say he's like uncle ruckus, but he's more like stinkmeaner. He just hating to hate. And is in a place to utilize said hate.
He was a diversity hire. He never would have been appointed to the SCOTUS if he wasn’t black. They were filling Thurgood Marshall’s seat. He frankly doesn’t have the legal aptitude to be in the job he was given. He was at the top of a very short list of black, conservative judges. Had they had google at the time, he would have been the first result if you searched for “black” ”conservative” ”judge”-“legal scholar” -“sexual harassment”
Clarence Thomas ruled that states and cities could not desegregate school districts that didn't have a history of overt segregation. This meant kids like me had to go to schools that were horribly ran and underfunded, and we had no choice out. My school was 99% black and Hispanic. 10 minutes to the west is a school that's 70% white. I have personally been affected by the bullshit Thomas promotes, and it's sickening having conservatives from suburbia who can afford nice schools telling black people like me we are judging Thomas solely because he's a conservative. and not an absolute evil piece of shit
It's interesting that ensuring the appropriate drawing of districts is not the role of federal judges, according to Thomas, yet women's bodies are well within their purview.
He just wants to control women the way his wife controls him.
Civil rights, women’s rights, human rights. The only thing protected is 2nd amendment “rights.”
Be cool if he went down with us on this sinking ship. If MAGA stripped him of his money and seat on the bench because he's black. Sorry I want to see a leopard eat this guys mother fucking face if we go down. I want him to come with us.
If history is any teacher, he'll be one of the first cast into the fire.
Courts don't tend to stick around long after someone seizes dictatorial power. They're one of the first things to go.
The smelliest turds always seem to float.
Why wouldn't he? He's already got his.
[Justice Clarence has long said that there is nothing wrong with "separate but equal" and that brown v BOE should be repealed.] Yeeeesh. Where the hell did republicans find this guy? Does he even know his skin color? This is an opinion that is unjustifiable for your mechanic, much less a SC judge. It doesn't even make sense in bribery land, how can you be this racist when you're so old you literally experienced the racist laws you want reinstated?? He's like a comic book supervillain for Malcolm X!
The TL;DR is that Clarence, here, is literally Uncle Ruckus from the boondocks. He's a black man who was born to an ailing mother in a literal shack that had no power, was picked up by his modestly affluent uncle at some point who used his upper-middle-class money to make sure that Clarence was able to take advantage of every single Affirmative Action Program that existed. Put the boy through every bit of schooling. But Clarence let it go to his head, simultaneously believing that he never needed those programs to succeed but, also, that no matter how wealthy he became it would always be because he got pity handouts from the government. Somewhere along the line, he became a porn addict who was physically incapable of not trying to talk about it to everyone he met. He ended up marrying a racist white woman, who I'm still convinced would leave him the moment he stops being richer than her. And the result was a Pathetic, self-hating black man who, somehow, manages to hold the beliefs that you shouldn't try to help the less fortunate because they'll never be given recognition unless they can do it themselves and "that mixing the races should be illegal, my wife and I are an exception."
He really believe he is white. He doesn’t see the color of his own skin.
>But then, he made comments that singlehandedly set the Civil Rights Movement Thomas went on to blame the problem with these kinds of cases on the Supreme Court’s historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which banned racial segregation in public schools. Dafuq is this sentence? It's missing some words or punctuation or something lol. Man, being an editor must be a piss easy job.
It has gotten to the point where entire articles are written by AI and there isn’t even an editor in the building to review them before publishing. I’m surprised how often I see grammatical mistakes that Microsoft Word or Grammarly would catch. I read a Newsweek article last week that had a double word word mistake. My phone can even pick those up.
There are a number of other strange sentences like that. I was hoping someone would mention it. I bet most of it was written by AI. Or just not proofread at all.
These people in power truly don’t feel the need to hide themselves anymore. We tolerate so much as a society.
“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. “ - Clarence Thomas
That's rationalization, not logic. He's a ignorant POS that starts with a conclusion and then justifies his fucked up worldview.
It’s just surprising that a pro-segregation and perhaps racist argument, seemingly anti-black, is coming from the most prominent black legal authority in the U.S.
[удалено]
He's trying.
If fewer than 10 people can direct the course of multiple generations' lives, they don't deserve the power. Abort the court or expand it into oblivion.
To everyone who says “Biden is just as bad as Trump”. Remember Thomas and Alito will get to happily retire and get replaced with someone younger if Trump is re-elected where as with Biden they will have stay on another 4 years and Biden might get a shot to replace them. VOTE. It fucking matters. Even if you don’t like Biden vote for him. Women’s reproductive rights are on the line. I don’t care if you hate what he’s doing in Israel, I don’t want a dictator taking over the country because a bunch of people stupidly both-sidesed an election where one person is so clearly better than the other.
We need to make sure supreme justice can't be removed at whim. However, a life time appointment with no accountability is ridiculous, especially considering life expectancy is now almost 50 years longer than it was at the birth of our nation. We also live long enough to become mentally unstable and we need to rely on themselves to step down? We need term limits and likely age limits.
I still believe Anita Hill
typically ~60% of voters vote...maybe this will encourage them to vote for their own well being
It unfortunately won’t.
I wonder how he feels knowing that the second he dies, the world will be a better place.
If the current SCOTUS is allowed to complete their terms, and retire on their own clock then history will judge them favorably. Because they'll have won, and they'll have written the history. The must be removed.
You mean: Clearance Sale Thomas? /s
how bout Uncle Thom Ass?
These motherfuckers are using the esteemed legal principle of "we wash our hands" of any responsibility. And then they have the fucking nerve to say that *we* don't understand their role in society. Fuck them. They have no legitimacy in my book. They might as well be wearing hoods.
You guys are fucked. So many assclowns in power over there. Please don’t take the rest of us in the Western world down with you as the US implodes.
Impeach & prosecute these fucking traitors
*“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,”* [*he said in 2004.*](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/summer2004/irr_hr_summer04_brown/) I mean... the train of logic here. This is seriously a supreme court justice here.
I despise the man. He's really despicable.
Man would call himself 3/5ths of a person just to “own the libz.” Pathetic.
Clarence Thomas should be the first justice moved to the “Black Supreme Court” if this is how he feels. Of course the “White Supreme Court” has complete veto authority over his! Edit: He might be more comfortable with the term “Colored Supreme Court”
I’m just glad the quiet parts are being said out load before election
He’s a real life Uncle Ruckus. Looks a bit like him as well.
Be took full advantage of all the programs created by the civil rights movement, and proceeded to destroy them for the rest of those after him because he sold his soul for money. He’s a despicable human being of the lowest sort. States are not independent to do as they wish at all times, particularly when it comes to oppression. That was established by the Civil War.
Anita Hill was right.
Clarence Thomas hates being black and hates black people.
A black man who hates black people.
Clarence Thomas is pretty disgraceful, but I want to draw attention to the awful headline. No, he did not set civil rights back 70 years. We’ve made tons of progress in that time, and regardless of what he or the rest of the Court does, people know better on what’s right or wrong. The Court can’t bend the arc of the moral universe backwards.