Thomas is an outlier once again.

[Billiejeens]

WTF?
Tax reform?

You just showed yours, moron.

Yes imbecile.

That was the defying issue for the Tea Party

 

[Jarlaxle]

Really?
A hearing isn't due process?
Then what is?

An ex parte hearing, with no right to face your accuser, or even present evidence.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Avoiding the question shows your ignorance and laziness. Sad.

It's constitutional until it isn't.
Some court somewhere, would have struck it down in 53 years since it was enacted.

Like I even had to answer, I guess people have to, to teabaggers.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yes imbecile.

That was the defying issue for the Tea Party

"People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform".

More like tax CUTS from ONE party, just like it was 40 years ago and today.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

An ex parte hearing, with no right to face your accuser, or even present evidence.

In a hearing you have either yourself or your lawyer present, dumbass.

 

[Rogue AI]

It's constitutional until it isn't.
Some court somewhere, would have struck it down in 53 years since it was enacted.

Like I even had to answer, I guess people have to, to teabaggers.

How old was Roe? Try again.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

How old was Roe? Try again.

WTF?
53 years.

You try again.

Roe vs, Wade wasn't codified into law, it was a supreme court decision.
The contents of the 14th amendment is.

 

[Rogue AI]

WTF?
53 years.

You try again.

Roe vs, Wade wasn't codified into law, it was a supreme court decision.
The contents of the 14th amendment is.

Merely an example that shows things can be corrected even after decades. I suppose I should have used something like Plessey v Ferguson. The point remains, it is never too late to fix terrible mistakes.

One of the primary reason this has been left to stew is because of who it applies to. Most conservatives won't go out of their way to advocate for felons, whereas liberals who often champion felons want a disarmed America, giving them no cause to defend felons. For the first time in our history we have an administration that is so corrupt they will gladly create felons of their political opposition out sheer evil spite. Clearly past conservatives were wrong to ignore this, but better late than never.

 

[Billiejeens]

"People of multiple political parties finding common ground around pushing for tax reform".

More like tax CUTS from ONE party, just like it was 40 years ago and today.

You are stunningly ignorant.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Merely an example that shows things can be corrected even after decades. I suppose I should have used something like Plessey v Ferguson. The point remains, it is never too late to fix terrible mistakes.

One of the primary reason this has been left to stew is because of who it applies to. Most conservatives won't go out of their way to advocate for felons, , but teabaggers do..........

Conservatives won't..........Teabaggers claiming to be conservative will............

whereas liberals who often champion felons want a disarmed America, giving them no cause to defend felons.

Felons shouldn't have weapons.

For the first time in our history we have an administration that is so corrupt they will gladly create felons of their political opposition out sheer evil spite.

Trump created the felons, they were stupid enough to obey their dear leader........They get what they deserve..........

Charted: Trump world allies sentenced to prison​

Axios
https://www.axios.com › Politics & Policy
Mar 7, 2024 — Never before have so many people closely associated with a former president been sentenced to jail.

Clearly past conservatives were wrong to ignore this, but better late than never.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You are stunningly ignorant.

Poor teabagger....................
The truth hurts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are stunningly ignorant.

No, he is REALLY STUPID.

 

[Billiejeens]

No, he is REALLY STUPID.

It can be each.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, he is REALLY STUPID.

Another butt hurt teabagger.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It can be each.

WTF?

 

[talksalot]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat...

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

So because Justice Thomas has a problem with confiscating personal firearms you think he's B A D.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Violent domestic abusers should not have access to firearms.