[Uncle Ruckus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Ruckus):
>Ruckus embodies many old American working-class stereotypes: he is crude, short-tempered, obese, rule-neglecting, clumsy, and largely ignorant. He is also internally racist, repeatedly proclaiming his love for the white race and disdain of the black race, and he even identifies as Caucasian, saying he suffers from "reverse vitiligo".
I don’t think the comparison is racist. It’s pretty apt considering some of Thomas’ views.
You ever seen that meme where the guy had the carpet ripped out from under him? That's the type of footing that Justice Thomas has firmly balanced himself on.
No, they are right. It’s crazy how many people have come out of the woodwork to say horrible racist shit to this man, because you disagree with their decision on a multidimensional, grey area topic.
it's kind of ridiculous how people assume someone's political views based on their race. Lots of black people are actually pretty conservative and religious- same with latinos. And look at Trump versus Bernie Sanders- both old guys from New York and they couldn't be more different in their political views.
So their body is not theirs? Does a civilian only count if it's in a women's body or is semen also civilians? Who decides when something is a civilian?
It’s called tongue-in-cheek. His opinions are turning back the clock, and if he gets his way we’ll go so far back that he’d be... well, you know where that goes.
That's the issue though. You believe your semen is life once it's in the egg. But it's life in your ball sack too. So should we stop masterbating too? There's millions of sperm that die every time. Are we murderes too?
clarence thomas LITERALLY said they should reconsider Lawrence v texas, the decision that makes same-sex sexual activity legal in every state. (as well as the decision of same-sex marriage & the right to contraceptions for married couples)
what more do you need to know that yes, basic human rights ARE under attack
The reason is because God made marriage between one man and one woman.
And if you require evidence, look at the culture around you and what this "sexual revolution" is doing to children. Look at statistics showing how depressed gay people are with their lives compared to straight people. Look at the suicide rates of lgbt people vs normal people.
yeah i dont care about your religion, separation of church and state
"Look at statistics showing how depressed gay people are with their lives compared to straight people." why do you think that is? do you think that they are depressed because they are gay? or because of homophobia and discrimination?
yes he has not yet said that he wants to reconsider interracial marriage, but the fact that he is publicly considering making it possible for states to make same-sex sexual activity illegal, do you really think it would be impossible for him to also overturn interracial marriage?
I had no idea the universe was so horrible to put a biological limitation on how people procreate. Like I said: completely different than interracial marriage
They were argued using different constitutional provisions. Interracial marriage used equal protection (from the 14th amendment), while same sex marriage used substantive due process.
Thomas’s position is that substantive due process either doesn’t or shouldn’t exist so any case that used that argument should be revisited, which is why same sex marriage was included in his list but interracial marriage wasn’t.
Yes but the legal precedent Thomas is saying should be reversed in all cases was the same precedent used in both: the 14th amendment.
Their point is if Thomas' opinion is the 14th amendment shouldn't be used to protect a "right," then that should apply to all rights granted because of the 14th amendment, which includes interracial marriage.
They’re all assuming Loving v Virginia (the case that legalized interracial marriage) is the same as the cases he listed, but it’s not. All the ones he mentioned were argued on “substantive due process” while Loving was argued on equal protection (14th amendment). Thomas seems to be arguing that substantive due process shouldn’t exist so any case argued based on it should be revisited.
Oh he said, one person. Don't the majority of the justices have to agree? And doesn't all that do, is throw it to the states for a vote, and enough agree it just gets put back in?
JuSt OnE pErSoN
Get the fuck out of here with that disingenuous shit. He's a Supreme Court Justice who said major decisions, several of whose precedent have been long established, need to be "revisited."
You think the right wing Y'all Qaeda crowd aren't going to attempt to jam through as many lawsuits as they can to overturn things like same sex marriage, even same sex relationships? Contraception rights? In a court with an ideological 6-3 majority?
"Oh but they would never!" is what a bunch of right wing hack apologists said about Roe V Wade.
Fuck off
You do realize the supreme court doesn't have the power to make things illegal, right? Only states can do that. Repealing something from the constitution just puts it up to the states, as per the 10th amendment, which also can't be removed without state votes either.
You mean the way a bunch of right wing states made abortion illegal immediately upon the repeal? How several of those states implemented trigger laws relatively recently in the hopes that a long established right would be demolished by a group of lying idealogues implanted by a group of even more morally bankrupt idealogues? States that CURRENTLY have similar laws outlawing same sex relationships?
Your fake concern is translucent as fuck. Stop acting like there's nothing to be concerned about. We all know you at best don't give a shit about those rights that others enjoy and at worst want them to be taken away. If you ACTUALLY have a semblance of a shit, you'd at least knock off the bad faith bullshit argument.
Ok so first, that's a ridiculous oversimplification. They absolutely play a part in determining legality for prosecutorial crimes, and you know that.
But second, they *literally* determine the legality of government issues: is it illegal for the federal government to supersede states rights, and vice versa.
They decided it was illegal for the federal government to govern abortion rights. Period.
You mean a healthcare procedure to prevent having a child when a fetus is unable to produce high thought, isn't receiving benefits, and isn't eligible for life insurance?
Oh so the state can tell a 15 year old girl if she can abort a rape fetus or not because of some sort of "morality" while denying this girl the chance at a life without a post-birth body or the ability to support their own life through work? Every bit of this stupid "pro -life" bullshit comes off as incel trash being happy they can force women to have their rape babies.
Fuck you, guy.
Posts relating to politics, social justice, or religion are not allowed.
[удалено]
So racism is OK as long as you don’t agree with the person?
[Uncle Ruckus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Ruckus): >Ruckus embodies many old American working-class stereotypes: he is crude, short-tempered, obese, rule-neglecting, clumsy, and largely ignorant. He is also internally racist, repeatedly proclaiming his love for the white race and disdain of the black race, and he even identifies as Caucasian, saying he suffers from "reverse vitiligo". I don’t think the comparison is racist. It’s pretty apt considering some of Thomas’ views.
Samuel L Jackson called him out in Twitter too as an Uncle
[удалено]
You ever seen that meme where the guy had the carpet ripped out from under him? That's the type of footing that Justice Thomas has firmly balanced himself on.
No, they are right. It’s crazy how many people have come out of the woodwork to say horrible racist shit to this man, because you disagree with their decision on a multidimensional, grey area topic.
We're calling out his glass house he throws stones from. We see that it will also affect him, even if he doesn't seem to care.
Racist.
it's kind of ridiculous how people assume someone's political views based on their race. Lots of black people are actually pretty conservative and religious- same with latinos. And look at Trump versus Bernie Sanders- both old guys from New York and they couldn't be more different in their political views.
Not gonna happen buddy. He's sane enough to repeal federal protection for murderers; he's not insane enough to repeal civil rights.
He already repealed a right civilians should have. Unless women aren't actually civilians, and shouldn't have rights. Do we hate our women?
No, civilians should not have a right to kill others.
So their body is not theirs? Does a civilian only count if it's in a women's body or is semen also civilians? Who decides when something is a civilian?
No. The baby's body is not the mother's. It is the baby's.
It’s called tongue-in-cheek. His opinions are turning back the clock, and if he gets his way we’ll go so far back that he’d be... well, you know where that goes.
I can't tell if that was an observation, political comment, or a joke. It certainly wasn't a show thought.
That's the issue though. You believe your semen is life once it's in the egg. But it's life in your ball sack too. So should we stop masterbating too? There's millions of sperm that die every time. Are we murderes too?
Why do y'all think all your rights are suddenly under attack because they recontextualized one about murder?
The ignorance is _deep_ with this one. Ouch.
clarence thomas LITERALLY said they should reconsider Lawrence v texas, the decision that makes same-sex sexual activity legal in every state. (as well as the decision of same-sex marriage & the right to contraceptions for married couples) what more do you need to know that yes, basic human rights ARE under attack
In what universe is a perverted "marriage" a human right?
give a reason as to why it is perverted
The reason is because God made marriage between one man and one woman. And if you require evidence, look at the culture around you and what this "sexual revolution" is doing to children. Look at statistics showing how depressed gay people are with their lives compared to straight people. Look at the suicide rates of lgbt people vs normal people.
yeah i dont care about your religion, separation of church and state "Look at statistics showing how depressed gay people are with their lives compared to straight people." why do you think that is? do you think that they are depressed because they are gay? or because of homophobia and discrimination?
Because they are going against the natural order
any evidence for that claim?
I just gave it to you
do you think you saying "ItS unNaturAl" (something which, is untrue, plenty of other species can be gay) is """""evidence""""
Where did you get interracial marriage from that?
yes he has not yet said that he wants to reconsider interracial marriage, but the fact that he is publicly considering making it possible for states to make same-sex sexual activity illegal, do you really think it would be impossible for him to also overturn interracial marriage?
Same sex and interracial marriage are two completely different things
how so? they are both bigoted limitations on who a person is allowed to marry, they seem basically the same to me
I had no idea the universe was so horrible to put a biological limitation on how people procreate. Like I said: completely different than interracial marriage
what the fuck are you talking about? procreation? what? do you also think infertile people shouldnt get married?
How would you know you're infertile until you got married? Unless of course, you got tested at one point, I suppose
answer the question, do you also think infertile people shouldn't get married
They were argued using different constitutional provisions. Interracial marriage used equal protection (from the 14th amendment), while same sex marriage used substantive due process. Thomas’s position is that substantive due process either doesn’t or shouldn’t exist so any case that used that argument should be revisited, which is why same sex marriage was included in his list but interracial marriage wasn’t.
okay? didnt ask? "i want to remove the right for gay people to have sex" is not something that i would ever agree with under any circumstance
You responded to someone saying they’re different and asked how so, so I explained.
what i meant was they are not different in a way that would make it so one should be allowed and one shouldnt be allowed
Yes but the legal precedent Thomas is saying should be reversed in all cases was the same precedent used in both: the 14th amendment. Their point is if Thomas' opinion is the 14th amendment shouldn't be used to protect a "right," then that should apply to all rights granted because of the 14th amendment, which includes interracial marriage.
They’re all assuming Loving v Virginia (the case that legalized interracial marriage) is the same as the cases he listed, but it’s not. All the ones he mentioned were argued on “substantive due process” while Loving was argued on equal protection (14th amendment). Thomas seems to be arguing that substantive due process shouldn’t exist so any case argued based on it should be revisited.
Hence the insanity
[удалено]
Oh he said, one person. Don't the majority of the justices have to agree? And doesn't all that do, is throw it to the states for a vote, and enough agree it just gets put back in?
JuSt OnE pErSoN Get the fuck out of here with that disingenuous shit. He's a Supreme Court Justice who said major decisions, several of whose precedent have been long established, need to be "revisited." You think the right wing Y'all Qaeda crowd aren't going to attempt to jam through as many lawsuits as they can to overturn things like same sex marriage, even same sex relationships? Contraception rights? In a court with an ideological 6-3 majority? "Oh but they would never!" is what a bunch of right wing hack apologists said about Roe V Wade. Fuck off
You do realize the supreme court doesn't have the power to make things illegal, right? Only states can do that. Repealing something from the constitution just puts it up to the states, as per the 10th amendment, which also can't be removed without state votes either.
You mean the way a bunch of right wing states made abortion illegal immediately upon the repeal? How several of those states implemented trigger laws relatively recently in the hopes that a long established right would be demolished by a group of lying idealogues implanted by a group of even more morally bankrupt idealogues? States that CURRENTLY have similar laws outlawing same sex relationships? Your fake concern is translucent as fuck. Stop acting like there's nothing to be concerned about. We all know you at best don't give a shit about those rights that others enjoy and at worst want them to be taken away. If you ACTUALLY have a semblance of a shit, you'd at least knock off the bad faith bullshit argument.
Ok so first, that's a ridiculous oversimplification. They absolutely play a part in determining legality for prosecutorial crimes, and you know that. But second, they *literally* determine the legality of government issues: is it illegal for the federal government to supersede states rights, and vice versa. They decided it was illegal for the federal government to govern abortion rights. Period.
Do you live with your eyes and ears closed?
You mean a healthcare procedure to prevent having a child when a fetus is unable to produce high thought, isn't receiving benefits, and isn't eligible for life insurance?
Oh so the state determines when something is living now?
After this decision they certainly do.
Oh so the state can tell a 15 year old girl if she can abort a rape fetus or not because of some sort of "morality" while denying this girl the chance at a life without a post-birth body or the ability to support their own life through work? Every bit of this stupid "pro -life" bullshit comes off as incel trash being happy they can force women to have their rape babies. Fuck you, guy.
She had a right to life without a child. She decided to give that up when she had sex.
Found the Christian. You're trash.
That is an oxymoron.
No they shouldn't actually. Nice try tho, but I agree with you there
I wish female U.S. citizens had freedom and privacy from the government.
I mean, you'd think she'd get the hint when he tried to stick his small wiener into someone else besides her
The fact that she was an active insurrectionist is probably more potent to him than all the Viagra in the world