Thomas writes the way heās always voted alreadyā¦ followed by a lot of speculation about what the others might do. Just more drama.
Yikes. Like my buddy texted me at around 7pm CST on election night: Scared yet?
Is there anyone filled with more self loathing than this guy?
Clarence Thomas and his wife are corrupt to the core, and he should have been impeached a long time ago.
Thanks, Joe Biden.
Here it is, the big payoff for years of cynical conservative scamming: This Supreme Court crew is going to eviscerate existing precedent that most likely take decades to recover from, if ever. Cheers!
Activist what?
How āConservativeā of them.
On Dec 12, 2000 the conservative SCOTUS issued a ānot a precedent precedentā to crown Dubya pResident so not surprising they are willing to undo precedent. Esp with Gorsuch saying heād respect it.
Wikipedia: Bush v. Gore.
By definition, if a vote is 5-4 or 6-3, it hard to say the it was egregiously bad law. But Iām not an attorney nor a RWNJ so what do i know.
In other words, a new interpretation of the original language. There is no getting around the fact that this demands a complete reinterpretation of the law.
Originalism is an illogical idea from the start. Language must be interpreted, but these born-again bastards want to reread it from scratch.
First thing to go, freedom from religion. The people that back this clown already wipe their feet on the first amendment so they can mount the second.
It is an absolute disgrace that this man has been sitting (and continues to sit) on the Supreme Court of the United States. He is not any kind of neutral judge, but instead a raving Federalist Society activist. He is also probably the laziest person to sit on the court in many years. How many times has he failed to ask questions at oral arguments? He has already made up his mind when he votes to take up a case. Talk about a prime candidate for impeachment. And Iām sick and tired of this āorginalistā argument; it was bullshit when Scalia said it and is no more true now. The Constitution is deliberately ambiguous in some areas and the mere fact that the Founders included the amendment procedure tells us that it was always meant to be a ālivingā document, subject to change based on current conditions. I truly despise this man, and thanks again, then-Senator Biden for allowing him to reach the highest court in the land.
āāBecause the Constitution is supreme over other sources of law, it requires us to privilege its text over our own precedents when the two are in conflict,ā Thomas wrote. āI am aware of no legitimate reason why a court may privilege a demonstrably erroneous interpretation of the Constitution over the Constitution itself.ā"
By this standard, maybe the Court short reverse Marbery v. Madison, which establishes judicial review. Where does the text of the Constitution provide for judicial review?
Ok. But once you let the genie out of the lamp, it doesnāt go back in. Especially when Progressives take the majority. āErroneousā can be a matter of opinion.
So which way is the influence going? Thomasās wife is influential in the administration, so is that cover for overturning preceent, or are trumpās people pushing the idea that the gang of five will have to overturn a lot of precedent really soon to keep republicans in power?
Meanwhile, of course, the āclearly erroneousā line is either a laugh line or a sign of mental decline. Or perhaps both.
Until recently, Justice Thomas was seen as a far right wing radical crackpot. His dissents were lonely affairs, and were seen as crazy stuff. The Supreme Court is on the possible verge of joining Thomas in crazy town.
Will it?
But her emails!
If we had democratic presidential elections, there would be 8 Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, and only 1 (Thomas) appointed by a Republican President.
Think about that.
No Democracy, No Justice.
I seem to remember something about the Constitution saying that you are only 3/5 of a person. Or does the Constitution only matter when you say it does?
Itās a good that there is no such thing as conservative activist judges.
/snark