Classic... A Call by Progressives to Lynch Clarence Thomas...

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by mal, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. mal
    Offline

    mal Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    42,625
    Thanks Received:
    4,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,813
    Location:
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde™
    Ratings:
    +5,028
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. driveby
    Offline

    driveby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    8,836
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,325
    Racists.....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    when has breitbart ever told the truth about anything.

    nice deflection about 'racists', though.



    let me get this straight... if a black judge doesn't have the brains g-d gave him and isn't fit for the bench, it's racist to say that?

    i think it's racist not to. so there ya go.
     
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    How do we know they aren't right wingers trying to make progressives look bad? They've been doing a lot of that lately.

    HOAX VIDEO EXPOSED: Planned Parenthood Already Reported "Sex Trafficking" To FBI | Media Matters for America

    It's a problem that this comes from Breitbart, in that it feeds into them feeling that the right wing media has been creating news stories to fuel their agenda, rather than just reporting the news straight.
     
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    Why do you call him a "Black Judge"? Are the other SC Justices known as "White Judges" or "Female Judges"? :confused:

    Besides, I'm more concerned with the one judge who can't seem to stay awake on the bench!
     
  6. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    Stare decisisSee also: Stare decisis in the U.S. legal system
    According to law professor Michael J. Gerhardt, Thomas has supported leaving a broad spectrum of constitutional decisions intact.[105] Thomas supports statutory stare decisis.[106] During his confirmation hearings Thomas said: "tare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."[107] Among the thirteen justices who served on the Rehnquist Court, Thomas ranked eleventh for the number of votes he cast overturning precedent (without accounting for length of Court service).[108] However, on a frequency basis, he urged overruling and joined in overruling precedents more frequently than any other justice.[108]

    According to Scalia, Thomas is more willing to overrule constitutional cases: "If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."[109] Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; he has said, "When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."[110] Thomas believes that an erroneous decision can and should be overturned, no matter how old it is.[110]

    [edit] Commerce ClauseThomas has consistently supported narrowing the Court's interpretation of the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause (which is often simply called the "Commerce Clause") to limit federal power. At the same time, Thomas has broadly interpreted states' sovereign immunity from lawsuits under the Commerce Clause.[111]

    In United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, the Court held that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-commercial activities. In these cases, Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing for the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Subsequently, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause to empower the federal government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who used marijuana grown at home for medicinal purposes. Thomas dissented in Raich, again arguing for the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.

    Thomas and Scalia have rejected the notion of a Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative Commerce Clause". That doctrine bars state commercial regulation even if Congress has not yet acted on the matter.[112]

    In Lopez, Thomas expressed his view that federal regulation of either manufacturing or agriculture is unconstitutional; he sees both as outside the scope of the Commerce Clause.[113][114] He believes federal legislators have overextended the Commerce Clause, while some of his critics argue that Thomas's position on Congressional authority would invalidate much of the contemporary work of the federal government.[114] According to Thomas, it is not the Court's job to update the Constitution. Proponents of broad national power such as Professor Michael Dorf deny that they are trying to update the Constitution. Instead, they argue that they are merely addressing a set of economic facts that did not exist when the Constitution was framed.[115]

    [edit] FederalismFederalism was a central part of the Rehnquist Court's constitutional agenda.[116] Thomas consistently voted for outcomes that promoted state-governmental authority, in cases involving federalism-based limits on Congress's enumerated powers.[116] According to law professor Ann Althouse, the Court has yet to move toward "the broader, more principled version of federalism propounded by Justice Thomas."[117]

    In Foucha v. Louisiana, Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that required the removal from a mental institution of a prisoner who had become sane.[118] The Court held that a Louisiana statute violated the Due Process Clause "because it allows an insanity acquittee to be committed to a mental institution until he is able to demonstrate that he is not dangerous to himself and others, even though he does not suffer from any mental illness."[119] Dissenting, Thomas cast the issue as a matter of federalism.[118] "Removing sane insanity acquittees from mental institutions may make eminent sense as a policy matter," he concluded, "but the Due Process Clause does not require the States to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."[119]

    [edit] Privileges, immunities, and firearmsThomas agreed with the judgment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the right to keep and bear arms is applicable to state and local governments, but Thomas wrote a separate concurrence finding that an individual's right to bear arms is fundamental as a privilege of American citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause rather than as a fundamental liberty right under the due process clause. The four justices in the plurality opinion specifically rejected incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause, "declin[ing] to disturb" the holding in the Slaughter-House Cases, which, according to the plurality, had held that the clause applied only to federal matters.[120][121]

    [edit] Executive powerThomas has argued that the executive branch has broad authority under the Constitution and federal statutes. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he was the only justice who agreed with the Fourth Circuit that Congress had power to authorize the President's detention of US citizens who are enemy combatants. Thomas granted the federal government the "strongest presumptions" and said "due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination" to justify the imprisonment of Hamdi, a US citizen.[122]

    Thomas also was one of three justices who dissented in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay required explicit congressional authorization, and held that the commissions conflicted with both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and "at least" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.[123] Thomas argued that Hamdan was an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention, and he agreed with Justice Scalia that the Court was "patently erroneous" in its declaration of jurisdiction in this case.

    [edit] Free speechAmong the nine justices, Thomas was the second most likely to uphold free speech claims (tied with David Souter), as of 2002.[124] He has voted in favor of First Amendment claims in cases involving a wide variety of issues, including pornography, campaign contributions, political leafleting, religious speech, and commercial speech.

    On occasion, however, he has disagreed with free speech claimants. For example, he dissented in Virginia v. Black, a case that struck down a Virginia statute that banned cross burning. Concurring in Morse v. Frederick, he argued that students' free speech rights in public schools are limited.[125]

    Thomas authored the decision in ACLU v. Ashcroft, which held that the Child Online Protection Act might (or might not) be constitutional. The government was enjoined from enforcing it, pending further proceedings in the lower courts.[126]

    Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  7. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30,322
    Thanks Received:
    5,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,110
    Location:
    your mother
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    Yes. There are the white judges, the Jewish judges, Hispanic judges, and epileptic judges.
     
  8. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,079
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,014
    Did they use the word lynch? If true, I have a problem with that. Good luck unseating a Justice. Not going to happen.
     
  9. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    yeah the video was such a hoax they fired the worker in it.
    just more LIES from mediamatters.
     
  10. rikules
    Offline

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +305


    just exactly the kind of thing many of these hard core conservatives WOULD do!

    plant a deranged lunatic amongst the progressives


    seek him out

    get him to say "lynch"

    and then use it as EVIDENCE and PROOF


    and, a tactic they used to destroy acorn.....
    heavily edited videos using lies and misinformation

    St. Louis Activist Hub: Tea Party Lynch Mob Reminds Us Why They Should Never Be In Power - Updated


    bottom line for me;
    though i denounce ALL acts of or suggestions of violence on BOTH SIDES (I have seen very few cons denounce any acts of or suggestions of violence on their own side)

    I have heard/read/seen too many expressions of hate and suggestions of violence coming from the conservatives to be affected by the few aberational examples of the same in leftists

    cons point to the occassional example of extremist behavior in some leftists and use it to denounce ALL liberals

    meanwhile they ignore all the hate and suggestions of violence coming form their own side

    glenn beck muses about killing michael moore
    limbaugh says "leave only some liberals left alive" and "we should beat them with clubs"
    coulter bemoans her regret that the 9/11 terrorists didn't kill everyone at the new york times
    fox attempts a lat enight humor/news show (ala colbert) in which they discuss killing liberals

    and on message boards thousands of cons talk about "the coming civil war"
    let us know they "have guns and are ready to use them"
    sell "liberal hunting permits - no limit" on the internet


    no doubt some leftists are BAD

    but that does NOT excuse the thousands of conservatives who are JUST as bad


    the bottom line is what you really believe;

    i believe gays should have equal rights
    i believe pot should be legal
    i believe that limited socialism can be a good thing
    i believe that America is and should remain a SECULAR nation
    I believe that creationism should NEVER be taught along side evolution
    I believe that sex outside of marriage is a good thing
    I believe that most conservatives are LYING (or self-deluded) when they insist that their platform/agenda is merely about big government and taxes when it is so clearly about christian indoctrination and conservative morals

    one leftist behaving badly does NOT counter all the conservatives behaving JUST as badly
    and does not shake my beliefs
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2011

Share This Page