What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[Ben Thomson]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

Thomas, the sleepy justice woke up to deliver a scathing and awesome dissent?..damn

 

[Shelzin]

I didn't say he explained facts wrong... I said that his premise has very little basis in fact... big difference... he's chasing ghosts that aren't there...

In what way? Seriously... Frankly we both know you didn't watch the video.

I think you should. That way you can actually have a conversation with me about it. Or don't watch the video, certainly your prerogative... But don't lie that you did.

Edit: Yes Kondor3... I see the But ... We both know it's true. If you actually watched the video, you would know why I know you didn't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

The Court before the election: "It's not ripe. Wait until after the election."
The Court after the election: "It's moot. You should have done something before the election."

It's literally that stupid.

 

[Unkotare]

The Court is compromise.

We need to remove the entire federal government and start over.

The Republic is GONE.

Spineless surrender monkeys ^^^^^^ are so damn lazy.

 

[Kondor3]

...The Court before the election: "It's not ripe. Wait until after the election." The Court after the election: "It's moot. You should have done something before the election." It's literally that stupid.

Ya just can't trust those darned Republican judges, can ya?

 

[Shelzin]

...The Court before the election: "It's not ripe. Wait until after the election." The Court after the election: "It's moot. You should have done something before the election." It's literally that stupid.

Ya just can't trust those darned Republican judges, can ya?

To be honest... I have a hard time trusting the government in general. It should always be questioned. I don't care what party the judge belongs to.

 

[toobfreak]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

The articles alleges that the Trump claims are baseless yet fails to provide any evidence to support that claim!

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Holy fuck 7 pages...lol

First I love Thomas. Any man being called Long Dong Silver is a hero. He musta punished that Anita bitch with it. I hope he slapped the shit outta here with it.

My sarcasm and dryness gets lost in type from.

Then a guy who never says a GD word in court says this................. Veary Interestink but shtoopid Lucille

 

[Care4all]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

 

[struth]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

 

[Roudy]

I read his dissent and he's 100% right. Too bad the Democrat lunatics can't discount him and label him a priveledged Whitey.

The left says he's an Oreo. Black on the outside and white on the inside.

The Left always gets a free pass for racism, sexism, etc.

 

[Roudy]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

Clarence Thomas should have recused himself. His wife has been very vocal in claiming election fraud. Thomas is one of the biggest disappointments. That he would turn out to be a right wing looney tune never occured to me.

I wonder if you said the same when Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped out of line and took political positions in public and made anti Trump anti Trump supporter comments? No of course not.

 

[Votto]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

 

[Moonglow]

Clarence is such a rightist he has a tattoo of Rush Limbaugh and often complains that no one listens to his impersonations of Long Dong Silver..The issue he complained about can easily be settled in Pennsylvania courts and legislation without the Supreme Court getting involved and politicizing their agenda.

 

[toobfreak]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

Just one more reason why this election fraud MUST BE INVESTIGATED!

 

[Moonglow]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

Just one more reason why this election fraud MUST BE INVESTIGATED!

You gonna ante up the tens of millions to do it?

 

[jackflash]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

It is obvious to virtually the entire American constituency that there were/are Puppet Masters behind the stage curtain(these PM's have been in place for a long time). I would say the puppet masters can be found in both the RNC/DNC on up to the fed reserve @ the very top.

 

[Votto]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

Just one more reason why this election fraud MUST BE INVESTIGATED!

You gonna ante up the tens of millions to do it?

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

 

[Votto]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

It is obvious to virtually the entire American constituency that there were/are Puppet Masters behind the stage curtain(these PM's have been in place for a long time). I would say the puppet masters can be found in both the RNC/DNC on up to the fed reserve @ the very top.

They obviously don't want resolution, just more division.

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.