Justice Thomas… Madly In Love

[Synthaholic]

I can’t wait for him to choke on a chicken bone, or finally succumb to his diabetes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas who probably harass Anita Hill, that Thomas, and made his confirmation about attacking a black man? That Thomas?

Thomas's second wife remained active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, and as founder and president of Liberty Central.[204] In 2011, she stepped down from Liberty Central to open a conservative lobbying firm, touting her "experience and connections", meeting with newly elected Republican congressmen and describing herself as an "ambassador to the tea party".[205][206] Also in 2011, 74 Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote that Thomas should recuse himself on cases regarding the Affordable Care Act, due to "appearance of a conflict of interest" based on the work of his wife.[207]
--------------------------------------
he needs to step down and he should of in 2011. He is bias and had numerous conflicts of interest.

I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh so let me ask first, is English your second or third language?

Justice Thomas' wife remained active in conservative politics.


So what? What difference does that make? Should the spouse of any official resign from life?

No its my first language. Thomas's second wife was a lobbyist and involved in bias non profits, he should of recused himself, and probably never confirmed, same as Kavanaugh.

Try to get your ....mind....and I use the term loosely.....around this.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a paid apparatchik for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Was she a lobbyist as well. we all know they go to the bench with different thoughts on the constitution, but not when your partner belongs to a lobbying group and bias non profit.

What a champion of civil rights she is:

In the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice and co-founder of the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU, "Women's rights are an essential part of the overall human rights agenda, trained on the equal dignity and ability to live in freedom all people should enjoy."

also Mitch McConnell or his wife must resign. I'm deadly serious.

and tramp should kick his dtr and sil to the curb.

1. The ACLU was founded on January 19, 1920. It grew out of a previous group, The National Civil Liberties Bureau which had grown out of the American Union Against Militarism, and a party that was held in New York City and attended by just about every radical from New York, such as Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley. In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the RedDean of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity.
   1. Roger Nash Baldwin : the founder, and director of ACLU. At the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. In late 1935, he gave a speech that said his political goal was communism. Early on, he wrote this: “Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.”

b. “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/07/12/american-communist-lawyers-union/


Yet, here is Bader Ginsburg, a paid ACLU employee....on the Supreme Court.

Amazing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can’t wait for him to choke on a chicken bone, or finally succumb to his diabetes.

Exactly the sort of mindset your predecessors, the Soviet Bolsheviks would write.....while they were slaughtering 100 million men, women and children.

One can only wonder at the sort of upbringing a sociopath like you had.

 

[PoliticalChic]

…with the US Constitution.


1.CNN regular Jeffrey Toobin describes Justice Thomas, succinctly:

“In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.” http://blogs.the-american-interest....omas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/#ixzz1WXKBUI2I

And Partners




2. A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, weathermen…..and the Supreme Court Justices.

Nowhere in the Constitution, the ‘law of the land,’ is there a requirement to do any more than listen to the meanderings of nine unelected lawyers. The Congress, and the President, and, yes, any literate citizen, are all assumed to have the same ability to judge constitutionality.

Exhibiting the brilliance that the knowledgeable have recognized in Justice Thomas, he puts the Court, the Justices, and the Constitution in perspective.


3. “…Clarence Thomas’s eloquent summary of the core precept of his judicial philosophy: that stare decisis—the venerable doctrine that courts should respect precedent—deserves but a minor place in Supreme Court jurisprudence. [He] emphasizes that, in America’s system of government, the “Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are the law.” That’s why justices and other governmental officers take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”—not to safeguard judicial precedents.

“That the Constitution outranks other sources of law is inherent in its nature,” he writes. The job of a Supreme Court justice, therefore, “is modest: We interpret and apply written law to the facts of particular cases.”
Justice Thomas’s Credo





4. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

The fact that Progressive villains…if that is not redundant…. Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were able to subsume the Founders’ ideas and replace them with their own is bad enough.

But the myriad of law school grads who swallowed the idea that the Constitution bows to judge’s opinions documents their gullibility and fatuousness.


It is important that everyone know who Pound and Langdell were, and what they did to US jurisprudence....and I can reveal that.....

....next

Thomas should die and go to hell and once there meet McConnell and Trump

Exactly the sort of mindset your predecessors, the Soviet Bolsheviks would write.....while they were slaughtering 100 million men, women and children.

One can only wonder at the sort of upbringing a sociopath like you had.





But......always amusing to find atheistic Democrats/Liberals mentioning Hell.


Try to keep your vituperation in order.

 

[edward37]

…with the US Constitution.


1.CNN regular Jeffrey Toobin describes Justice Thomas, succinctly:

“In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.” http://blogs.the-american-interest....omas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/#ixzz1WXKBUI2I

And Partners




2. A perennial mistake that folks make is awarding an undeserved objectivity, trustworthiness and/or ability to make decisions for the entire public. Nowhere is this more evident that that awarded to politicians, economists, bureaucrats, weathermen…..and the Supreme Court Justices.

Nowhere in the Constitution, the ‘law of the land,’ is there a requirement to do any more than listen to the meanderings of nine unelected lawyers. The Congress, and the President, and, yes, any literate citizen, are all assumed to have the same ability to judge constitutionality.

Exhibiting the brilliance that the knowledgeable have recognized in Justice Thomas, he puts the Court, the Justices, and the Constitution in perspective.


3. “…Clarence Thomas’s eloquent summary of the core precept of his judicial philosophy: that stare decisis—the venerable doctrine that courts should respect precedent—deserves but a minor place in Supreme Court jurisprudence. [He] emphasizes that, in America’s system of government, the “Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are the law.” That’s why justices and other governmental officers take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”—not to safeguard judicial precedents.

“That the Constitution outranks other sources of law is inherent in its nature,” he writes. The job of a Supreme Court justice, therefore, “is modest: We interpret and apply written law to the facts of particular cases.”
Justice Thomas’s Credo





4. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

The fact that Progressive villains…if that is not redundant…. Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were able to subsume the Founders’ ideas and replace them with their own is bad enough.

But the myriad of law school grads who swallowed the idea that the Constitution bows to judge’s opinions documents their gullibility and fatuousness.


It is important that everyone know who Pound and Langdell were, and what they did to US jurisprudence....and I can reveal that.....

....next

Thomas should die and go to hell and once there meet McConnell and Trump

Exactly the sort of mindset your predecessors, the Soviet Bolsheviks would write.....while they were slaughtering 100 million men, women and children.

One can only wonder at the sort of upbringing a sociopath like you had.





But......always amusing to find atheistic Democrats/Liberals mentioning Hell.


Try to keep your vituperation in order.

Look pc if I was really crazed I'd include you and all the other lying degenerate repubs here.. I didn't just those 3 pos

 

[edward37]

Went to Boys HS on Marcy and Putnum in Bed Sty before the rents went up More street learning than book learning but I made up for it in college

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The instruction manual for America is the Constitution.


As the great American jurist, Justice Rehnquist wrote about those judges who substitute their biases for the text of the Constitution:

“The brief writer’s version

seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.


Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf




The arguments for a ‘living Constitution’ begin with Chief Justice Hughes’ famous aphorism that
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

No, it isn't.

He should have been jailed.