Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

From May 2001:

 

https://nypost.com/2001/05/13/thomas-cries-heart-out-in-speech/

 

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke down in tears of joy as he spoke publicly for the first time about the legal battle to gain custody of his beloved 10-year-old grandnephew.

During a speech to the Bar Association in his native Savannah, Ga., Thomas paused, lowered his head, then wept uncontrollably and visibly shook for 25 seconds as he thanked lawyer Joseph Bergen for successfully handling the 1997 custody case of his sister’s grandson.

As tears streamed down the face of the normally reserved Thomas, the crowd of about 100, which included the justice’s mother and several cousins, broke the awkward silence with a round of heartfelt applause.

 

Quote

“That was embarrassing,” an emotional Thomas said during the Friday speech, before pausing again for a few more seconds.

“I apologize for the interruption. Suffice it to say, it had to be done very quickly, very quietly, very sensitively, very thoroughly,” said Thomas, his voice choked with a wave of emotion.

“Thank God for Joe Bergen. He has been a friend when my family needed friends. He has never asked for a single thing.”

Thomas then dabbed his watery eyes and resumed his speech.

The boy lives with Thomas and his wife in Fairfax, Va. Thomas has one adult son, Jamal, from a previous marriage.

 

 

Quote

Thomas added that he loves his job – but the salary doesn’t tip the scales of justice.

“The job is not worth doing for what they pay,” said Thomas, who was appointed in 1991 after fighting off sexual-harassment allegations by Anita Hill, his former subordinate.

“The job is not worth doing for the grief. But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Like the eight other members of the Supreme Court, Thomas does not grant interviews.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Being on the Supreme Court is not worth the grief or the pay. But being the selfless, humble public servant he is, he's gonna keep sacrificing for the rest of our sakes. And now we're crucifying him just like Jesus. We should all be ashamed.

Just like Jesus’ crucifixion, it’s part of God’s plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2023 at 3:10 PM, jimmyjazz said:

The kid didn't need to go to expensive private schools.  Even if Thomas couldn't really swing that monthly payment, it's not as if there were no other schooling options.  Total bullshit.

Exactly.  How many kids could go to public school on what he spent on tuition to that exclusive school?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The more I read about all of this the more convinced I become that the Federalist society is a domestic terrorist organization.

They certainly have done more harm to America than Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Shabaab combined.  

10 hours ago, Red Five said:

Flash forward a few weeks. "Ok, just so the Thomas' deposited 10 checks of a million dollars each, with notes on all saying "for repealing Roe".... I mean just leave him alone ok??".

And if this very scenario actually happened, there would not be a damn thing that would happen to him since the only remedy is impeachment and senate conviction which will never ever ever happen to a republican until America ceases to exist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the famous words of the US President who nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court: 

"I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are."

Two sentences later, he said he would "keep our eyes side open." The very doublethink Orwell warned us about.

No matter, Bush was elected in a landslide. No matter than his idiot savant artist son lied and ignored facts all over the place during his 8 years as Prez. Along with Reagan, the two Bushes heralded the lying, fact-denying, doublethinking, gaslighting, idiot world of MAGA-GQP-Trump.

If you voted for those clowns, you enabled the fascist-theocratic-Trump GQP of 2023 and far beyond—and what might well be the end of democracy in America. 

All history asks is you own it. 

 

Edited by BevoAbyss
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

This dude…. I mean, this guy is something else.

His life’s story is almost so ridiculous that if you put it in a novel you’d be widely panned. 

I don’t believe in the devil, but one has to question his existence when you consider that Thomas had reached the level of success that he has without any real repercussions.
Can you sell your soul to the devil? why hasn’t he come to me and at least ask if I’m interested?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/senator-lays-out-possible-tax-violations-and-fraud-for-payments-to-clarence-thomas-wife/ar-AA1aOQW7?ocid=sapphireappshare

“The second thing is that all the mischief with Leo and these phony front groups – all of that is potentially in violation of the tax code,” the Rhode Island lawmaker continued. “Some of it is conceivably even fraud. There could be potentially criminal aspects to this, particularly if there was no work performed for that $25,000. And all of that can be properly investigated without getting into the internal operations of the court and Clarence Thomas.”

  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

Probably not, but the IRS is executive branch and because of separation of powers, SC justices only voluntarily comply with that the whole tax thing.

 

Yours Truly,

John Roberts

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

welfare queen is a narrative invented in a town in upstate new york when black families started moving there.  the town went so far as requiring welfare recipients to pick up their checks at the police station.  despite looking hard for them, the town never did find any lazy welfare leeches, but lack of evidence has never stopped conservatives from believing all their own bullshit narratives. 

conservatism consists of at least two propositions.  the first is the in group, out group one that you're familiar with.  the second is that conservatives lie about everything, all the time, even to themselves.  it's the only way to keep all the dissonance at bay. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, it's almost that the conservative justices can't rescue themselves from cases due to entanglements because they'd have to do it in almost every damn case, which would negate their whole majority... 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.

The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.

That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.

Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

Edited by Stilicho
fuck words
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

Listen man. They discovered various penumbras around the 2nd amendment, but realized that other parts had few penumbras because James Madison appeared to them in dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Easy there, Grand Wizard.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

It would have been nice if all Democrats voted no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  
The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.
The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.
That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.
Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

100% real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sotomayor and Kagan getting a bit spicy with each other in the Warhol opinion and dissent.  Pretty entertaining.

Also, I see all the court of appeals citations take this form (CA2 2020) instead of (2d Cir. 2020).  Is that the new, new thing?

Also, on the Twitter case, they just sidestepped 230 altogether and held that 230 or not, the activities of an internet service provider can't constitute aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2333.  No effect on 230 at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...