The Supremes

[Francisco 2.0 32,226]

From May 2001:

 

https://nypost.com/2001/05/13/thomas-cries-heart-out-in-speech/

 

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke down in tears of joy as he spoke publicly for the first time about the legal battle to gain custody of his beloved 10-year-old grandnephew.

During a speech to the Bar Association in his native Savannah, Ga., Thomas paused, lowered his head, then wept uncontrollably and visibly shook for 25 seconds as he thanked lawyer Joseph Bergen for successfully handling the 1997 custody case of his sister’s grandson.

As tears streamed down the face of the normally reserved Thomas, the crowd of about 100, which included the justice’s mother and several cousins, broke the awkward silence with a round of heartfelt applause.

 

Quote

“That was embarrassing,” an emotional Thomas said during the Friday speech, before pausing again for a few more seconds.

“I apologize for the interruption. Suffice it to say, it had to be done very quickly, very quietly, very sensitively, very thoroughly,” said Thomas, his voice choked with a wave of emotion.

“Thank God for Joe Bergen. He has been a friend when my family needed friends. He has never asked for a single thing.”

Thomas then dabbed his watery eyes and resumed his speech.

The boy lives with Thomas and his wife in Fairfax, Va. Thomas has one adult son, Jamal, from a previous marriage.

 

 

Quote

Thomas added that he loves his job – but the salary doesn’t tip the scales of justice.

“The job is not worth doing for what they pay,” said Thomas, who was appointed in 1991 after fighting off sexual-harassment allegations by Anita Hill, his former subordinate.

“The job is not worth doing for the grief. But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Like the eight other members of the Supreme Court, Thomas does not grant interviews.

 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,648]

Being on the Supreme Court is not worth the grief or the pay. But being the selfless, humble public servant he is, he's gonna keep sacrificing for the rest of our sakes. And now we're crucifying him just like Jesus. We should all be ashamed.

[The Royal We 3,051]

14 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

From May 2001:

 

https://nypost.com/2001/05/13/thomas-cries-heart-out-in-speech/

 

 

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,620]

25 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Being on the Supreme Court is not worth the grief or the pay. But being the selfless, humble public servant he is, he's gonna keep sacrificing for the rest of our sakes. And now we're crucifying him just like Jesus. We should all be ashamed.

Just like Jesus’ crucifixion, it’s part of God’s plan. 

[pyrohornIII 4,772]

On 5/4/2023 at 3:10 PM, jimmyjazz said:

The kid didn't need to go to expensive private schools.  Even if Thomas couldn't really swing that monthly payment, it's not as if there were no other schooling options.  Total bullshit.

Exactly.  How many kids could go to public school on what he spent on tuition to that exclusive school?  

[Brisketexan 103,657]

Exactly.  How many kids could go to public school on what he spent on tuition to that exclusive school?  

None. Because public schools are the tool of the devil, and should be abolished. Duh.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,001]

But wait, there's more.  Looks like old Uncle Ruckus Tom sold his beloved grandnephew into slavery.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-child-hidden-lake-academy-congress-testimony-2023-5

 

[Firemans4Horn 17,261]

SMU Football got the death penalty for less than what these two traitorous human slush funds take on an annual basis. 

[HenryJames 65,567]

 

[Horn Dog 9,473]

10 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The more I read about all of this the more convinced I become that the Federalist society is a domestic terrorist organization.

They certainly have done more harm to America than Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Shabaab combined.  

10 hours ago, Red Five said:

Flash forward a few weeks. "Ok, just so the Thomas' deposited 10 checks of a million dollars each, with notes on all saying "for repealing Roe".... I mean just leave him alone ok??".

And if this very scenario actually happened, there would not be a damn thing that would happen to him since the only remedy is impeachment and senate conviction which will never ever ever happen to a republican until America ceases to exist.

[Francisco 2.0 32,226]

 

 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I give ZERO FUCKS if this has been posted already.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrrYbnGPbIY/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

If you are black and still supporting the right wing, you are a race traitor.

[tx 3 putt 75,570]

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

[BevoAbyss 1,974]

Let's not forget the famous words of the US President who nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court: 

"I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are."

Two sentences later, he said he would "keep our eyes side open." The very doublethink Orwell warned us about.

No matter, Bush was elected in a landslide. No matter than his idiot savant artist son lied and ignored facts all over the place during his 8 years as Prez. Along with Reagan, the two Bushes heralded the lying, fact-denying, doublethinking, gaslighting, idiot world of MAGA-GQP-Trump.

If you voted for those clowns, you enabled the fascist-theocratic-Trump GQP of 2023 and far beyond—and what might well be the end of democracy in America. 

All history asks is you own it. 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by BevoAbyss
Clarity

[Horn Dog 9,473]

Yea, but think about how nice it would have been to have a beer with them!

[Francisco 2.0 32,226]

 

 

[Dnaguy 11,599]

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

This dude…. I mean, this guy is something else.

His life’s story is almost so ridiculous that if you put it in a novel you’d be widely panned. 

I don’t believe in the devil, but one has to question his existence when you consider that Thomas had reached the level of success that he has without any real repercussions.
Can you sell your soul to the devil? why hasn’t he come to me and at least ask if I’m interested?

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,485]

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/senator-lays-out-possible-tax-violations-and-fraud-for-payments-to-clarence-thomas-wife/ar-AA1aOQW7?ocid=sapphireappshare

“The second thing is that all the mischief with Leo and these phony front groups – all of that is potentially in violation of the tax code,” the Rhode Island lawmaker continued. “Some of it is conceivably even fraud. There could be potentially criminal aspects to this, particularly if there was no work performed for that $25,000. And all of that can be properly investigated without getting into the internal operations of the court and Clarence Thomas.”

[tx 3 putt 75,570]

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,723]

32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,304]

A reminder that Clarence Thomas’s wife helped organize and transport the violent insurrectionists who wanted to hang Mike Pence. This is classic Stockholm Syndrome stuff. 

 

 

[Horn Dog 9,473]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

Probably not, but the IRS is executive branch and because of separation of powers, SC justices only voluntarily comply with that the whole tax thing.

 

Yours Truly,

John Roberts

[elfenix 34,129]

14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

welfare queen is a narrative invented in a town in upstate new york when black families started moving there.  the town went so far as requiring welfare recipients to pick up their checks at the police station.  despite looking hard for them, the town never did find any lazy welfare leeches, but lack of evidence has never stopped conservatives from believing all their own bullshit narratives. 

conservatism consists of at least two propositions.  the first is the in group, out group one that you're familiar with.  the second is that conservatives lie about everything, all the time, even to themselves.  it's the only way to keep all the dissonance at bay. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by elfenix

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,304]

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,304]

Sorry for the above post. It's clearly in the wrong thread. @immamac could you please delete it?

[SKJ 1,298]

At this point, it's almost that the conservative justices can't rescue themselves from cases due to entanglements because they'd have to do it in almost every damn case, which would negate their whole majority... 

[SKJ 1,298]

On 4/29/2023 at 10:50 AM, Stilicho said:

 

Originalism is a deliberate interpretive choice. It's not the only the means of interpreting constitutional text and its relatively new compared to other forms of interpretation (Brennan / T. Marshall "living constitutionalism"). It really hit the legal mainstream under Reagan, championed by Scalia.

To interpret the Constitution under originalism is to disregard most, if not all, historical and legal context that has occurred in this country since its ratification. It seeks to enshrine law and the definitions of terms in the Constitution perpetually in 1783 or 1865 (ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments). There is no evidence, that I've run across, that any of the Federalists or drafters of the constitution were under the illusion that the Constitution was a static document. J. Marshall directly states that it is not, and since Madison wrote the damn thing, you think he would've argued the point in Marbury. He didn't.

In practice, originalism does not seek to protect civil rights. The only civil rights that originalism has successfully "protected" have been 2A rights (which are relatively new in historical interpretation) and putting its thumb on the religion side of the state / religion scale. I can assure that modern 4th Amendment jurisprudence does not reflect 1783 realities, for example. How the hell could it?

Most civil rights, as we know them, have been derived by judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment (substantive due process). There are problems with the way the Court has defined those rights and where they "come" from (the first substantive due process case was actually Dred Scott), but originalism works against substantive due process, not with it. It's a legal response to the recognition of all sorts of civil rights under the 14th Amendment in the post-WWII era. It was "invented" strictly as a means of limiting constitutional scope and protections. It's a more educated Rush Limbaugh telling you the Constitution doesn't technically offer protections because they are not enumerated verbatim. That's not what the Constitution was, is, or was ever intended to be. At least not to my eyes.

Scalia, and others, have argued that it is meant to force legislative responsibility back on Congress, rather than have the judiciary be the final arbiter of what can be interpreted out of the 14th Amendment. In other words, Congress should pass laws or Constitutional amendments codifying interpretations of civil rights, so that they cannot be taken away by later Court opinions (like... abortion). That sounds nice in theory, but we have used the Court as a political proving ground going all the way back to Marbury. The amendment process is more or less dead in our current political gridlock (ERA been on the block for... 40ish years now?). It would be nice if we relied on judicial interpretation less, but its been baked into the system so to speak. There was never in any real chance that the federal government would suddenly become better legislators because a few hardcore conservative justices decided to be pedantic dicks about everything and go out of there way to make life for many Americans harder than it needs to be, and it's already hard enough for a lot of folks.

Originalism is the trickle-down economics of constitutional interpretation. It's spun up bullshit to keep certain interests in power perpetually. The shinejob that the Founders never intended the Constitution to be interpreted in a context outside of their own is a marketing ploy to conservatives to make them feel better about fucking people over legally.

Finally, the ultimate irony of originalism and its prohibition on substantive due process is that gets tossed out the window by Scalia, its chief proponent, when he goes looking for constitutional protections for the 2nd Amendment in Heller and and for religion in Hobby Lobby. Like every other weapon in the conservative's limited arsenal, it is not meant to be equitable. It's just another power grab under shoddy veneer.

It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

[Brisketexan 103,657]

It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

[jimmyjazz 45,212]

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

[Stilicho 1,394]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.

The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.

That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.

Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Stilicho
fuck words

[Bozo_Casanova 25,910]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

Listen man. They discovered various penumbras around the 2nd amendment, but realized that other parts had few penumbras because James Madison appeared to them in dreams.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,962]

18 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Easy there, Grand Wizard.

[WhatTheBuck 28,620]

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

[C-Man 26,757]

NSIAP

[Francisco 2.0 32,226]

 

 

[tx ind 6,904]

[David Dennison 17,804]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

It would have been nice if all Democrats voted no.

[jimmyjazz 45,212]

LMAO at Rafi Cruz getting less than 10% of what John Cornyn got.  Ain't that a kick in the nonexistent nuts.

[Horn Dog 9,473]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

One of these things is not like the others.  Cornyn be like

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Horn Dog

[WhatTheBuck 28,620]

Here’s the full Frontline doc on Clarence and Ginni.

 

[Satchel 6,903]

UT Law professor, Steve Vladeck is on Rachel Maddow discussing his new book on the vagaries of the SC’s shodow  docket.

[Pancho 43,020]

[gmr548 16,316]

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  
The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.
The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.
That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.
Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

[Chad Fuck 17,309]

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

100% real.

[elfenix 34,129]

Finds for the photographer against Warhol, and section 230 remains unchanged per the headline I just saw

[wildcat09 28,563]

Gorsuch is such a whiny asshole:

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,212]

When were people forced to remain in their homes?  News to me.  Beyond that, schools weren't "shuttered", they went virtual.  Some businesses were, to be sure.

How out of touch can he be?  Don't answer that.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,648]

Such a grandiose, arrogant cunt for someone with the actual least legitimacy to be on the Court.

[elfenix 34,129]

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.

[TwiceHorn 30,851]

Sotomayor and Kagan getting a bit spicy with each other in the Warhol opinion and dissent.  Pretty entertaining.

Also, I see all the court of appeals citations take this form (CA2 2020) instead of (2d Cir. 2020).  Is that the new, new thing?

Also, on the Twitter case, they just sidestepped 230 altogether and held that 230 or not, the activities of an internet service provider can't constitute aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2333.  No effect on 230 at all.

Edited May 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn