SCOTUS Challenge to the Liberal Intellectual Elite

I've heard that the American Left (the Liberal Intellectual Elite) holds SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas in low regard and finds it funny he's even on the Court.

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.

i don't have to post his decisions, ignorant frankie: he doesn't believe in stare decisis, which is the foundation of our entire common law system;

that alone makes lawyers and judges alike think the man is an idiot.

he also never asks questions from the bench because he's too ignorant to frame questions, which again lets people who actually know what they're doing know that he's not up to the task.

as for analyzing his decisions, you wouldn't understand the analysis anyway, so it wouldn't be worth the bother.

Dred Scott and Plessy were settled, stare decisis anyone?

Thomas believes that the Progressive justices have been laying waste to the concept of a limited federal government for 100 years now; that makes him admirable and again his opinions are unassailable as they are drilled into the bedrock of the Constitution and founding principles.

Your attacks on Thomas for his not asking questions is as ridiculous as you fatal underestimation of my ability to understand whatever drivel you post as your "insights"

I'm not surprised you relied on "he's stupid because I say so"
 
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!!!

Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for the Federal Government AND the Dean of Harvard Law and she didn't have "experience"???????????????

What the fuck is wrong with you guys???????????????

You can't be serious????????????????????

You just can't be...........

You must all be joking.
 
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!!!

Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for the Federal Government AND the Dean of Harvard Law and she didn't have "experience"???????????????

What the fuck is wrong with you guys???????????????

You can't be serious????????????????????

You just can't be...........

You must all be joking.
Kagan should recuse herself. Get a grip.She had direct influence getting ObamaCare passed...therefore a vested interest.

Get it ACE?

Abject failure...as per usual.
 
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!!!

Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General for the Federal Government AND the Dean of Harvard Law and she didn't have "experience"???????????????

What the fuck is wrong with you guys???????????????

You can't be serious????????????????????

You just can't be...........

You must all be joking.


Post on Thomas or STFU

Yes, that simple
 
Here's a good dissenting opinion from Thomas on property rights. Of course we know Liberals have no problem with the taking of other people's property, for the good of the whole of course :eusa_eh:

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 04—108

SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT
[June 23, 2005]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land … postpone even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134—135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “ ‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 9—10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational,” ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.


KELO V. NEW LONDON
 
SCOTUS...
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The city eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot,[2] which was eventually turned into a dump by the city
.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
It's been a few weeks.

How are you Libs making out digging through those Clarence Thomas opinion that show how stupid he is because so far you've not posted a single one
 
I've heard that the American Left (the Liberal Intellectual Elite) holds SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas in low regard and finds it funny he's even on the Court.

I challenge any of you to post an opinion written by Thomas along with your commentary that shows how a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that Thomas is a shallow and stupid as purported by the Left.
What proof do you have he's qualified?
Translation:
Challenge declined!
 

Forum List

Back
Top