Anything that pisses off Clarence Thomas, makes my day.
3 Likes
A former SCOTUS did “corporations are people” long before Bush v Gore.
Or Catholic agendas.
Long John speaks!!!
1 Like
Maybe he’s sorry he was allowed to take her on that first date and just wants to protect others from making similar mistakes.
1 Like
So, in your mind judicial philosophies overrule common sense and human decency?
“…Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States…”
What he tipped his hand about is his belief, not in the States, but in the singular righteousness of the Feds.
The fact is States are finding what conservatives want to paper over, because conservatives want every state to ban it. They’d never in a million years tolerate even one.
Did the Supreme Court tip its hand? Duh, uh.
But the court really tipped its hand when it refused to overturn the 10th Circuit’s refusal to stay the decision overturning Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.
“The Thomas-Scalia dissent suggests the two are sympathetic to laws banning gay marriage.”
You don’t say.
1 Like
Look closely. You can see Unctuous Tony’s hand up Uncle Thomas’ ass.
Most important statement. “It seems obvious that every gay marriage that takes place makes it more difficult to rule against gay marriage in the end,” he said. “I can’t imagine the conservatives on the Court would have turned down these other cases and allowed all those marriages to take place over the last several months if they did not know that they were going to lose on the merits.” If so this bodes well not only for Gay Marriage but for the health care subsidies as ruling against would take insurance away from millions.
Well, it’s not like he asked a question during oral arguments or anything.
1 Like
If Clarence Thomas cared so much about “states’ rights,” then why did he vote to overrule the Florida state courts in 2000 and hand the election to the guy who had lost it?
Simple – he doesn’t care about state’s rights. He cares about winning. he’s an outcome based adjudicator. If his side wins, then the process was fair. If his side loses, he complains – hypocritically.
2 Likes
It’s so terrifying that at LEAST two Justices misunderstand the very BASICS of the law and The Constitution, so blinded are they by their rigid political ideology. It is a disgrace! They are ignoring the very basics of the Constitution any high school law club easily understands. Vandals!
It would be indecorous to question his motives at this point in his career
Don’t think it’s the agenda, I think its the argument. When a tried and true argument they have polished and shined to a high luster does not fit their preconceived notion of how a case ‘should’ go the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas & Scalia) discard their shiny toy and tend to go with their inner ‘compass’ rather than the law. The other justices seem to follow the law as they have followed it in previous arguments, even if it might go against their personal convictions.
1 Like
Indecorous?
Scalia and Thomas?
7 to 2?
Why do you want us to lie about the conservative Justices?
1 Like
Oh Clarence! What are we going to do???
1 Like
If it came before the court he would vote to overturn Loving vs VA and invalidate his own marriage.