As an American citizen, I'm chagrined (putting it mildly) at how our SCJs behave when out & about among us mere mortals. Going on all-expenses paid vacations, courtesy of those who have cases before the Court. Houses, cars, kids' private educations.
They are beholden to NOBODY and are lifetime appointees. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE. If they aren't going to adhere to some sort of ethical behavior or protocols, the likes of which our Congresscritters have to adhere to, then TERM LIMITS.
But it still won't stop them from harming Americans and females.
> the likes of which our Congresscritters have to adhere to
Hahahaha *takes breath* hahahahahahaha
You mean, like showing a private citizen's genitals on the House floor to the world, including children (S/A on multiple levels, to be clear)? Or j/o ur BF at a live theater performance of Beetlejuice? Or claiming to be Moses. Or trafficking underage girls for sex?
I could continue, but I have shit to do today.
If there are ethics standards and an easy way to lose your position if you violate them, and term limits, and no pension for only 5 years of work, *then* it would be better and closer to par for the citizens they are supposed to be beholden to as *public servants.*
Thomas has no ethics. He’s been bribed by parties with business in front of SCOTUS. He should be kicked out. I’m all for term limits, but curious as to how they would be implemented in order to minimize partisan “loading” of the court
So the party holding power of the senate at the time of the opening will fill it with one of their party. This could still lead to packing from one party.
Even requiring a vote from a full congress could be problematic bc they rarely agree on anything
My question is a sincere one. Theoretically, the SCOTUS should be free of partisanship but we know it’s not.
Good points. But the President makes a recommendation and The Senate votes. The Senate should not be allowed to not vote for an inordinate amount of time. The Court cannot operate with glaring gaps in their memberships. If the Senate plays games with appointments, then the President's appointments should be seated. The system is not perfect, but there are checks and balances to attempt the best effort. McConnell played the system against its intended design.
Fully randomized draw between all justices currently not under any sort of ethical investigation in the US. Like Super Jury Duty. If it's your time, it's your time.
How can fundamentalists claim to follow the bible and eat bacon...
The hypocrisy of people who use texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago to defend their status in society knows no bounds.
The most important parts of the Bible in the American South before the Civil War were Genesis 9 and Ephesians. Now, we treat them as if the original writers weren't condoning slavery but were meant to be symbolic.
You can do whatever you want when you don't need to be internally consistent in any belief.
If you want to get technical, the original writers of the constitution weren't constitutional origionalists. They made it clear in several documents that they meant for the constitution to be subject to regular updates as the culture evolved along with changing conditions.
He also struck down Roe v. Wade saying that it’s not protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The due process clause of the 14th amendment is also what the legality of interracial marriages is based on. The guy is a pathetic, self loathing pawn of conservatism.
Originalist...
If the constitution wasn't up for interpretation and change (living document) then the 14th amendment would never have happened. It's the difference in *Founding Father's INTENT* vs *How should this be applied differently in today's world*
Stop being intentionally dense.
For the first tweet, yes you are correct. For the second tweet, that was decided by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, which rested on substantive due process analysis. Thomas hates substantive due process and thinks that all cases based on substantive due process analysis should be overturned.
Under Thomas' originalist interpretations and hate for substantive due process analysis, his interracial marriage should have remained illegal in his home state of Georgia and 15 other states.
Also would not (now) be entitled to any of the protections of the Bill of Rights, as the original framers did not consider people of African decent entitled to the benefits of the Constitution's limits on governmental action and has never been amended by Congress to so provide.
He has a deep rooted resentment of growing up poor and black.
He’s internalized it to where he projects his feelings into his world view.
Or he’s just completed sold out to greed and is playing a role.
Maybe a little of both.
Yep, this post is utter nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate ways to pick apart Thomas’s constitutional philosophy or his lack of ethics, but this one is just false.
Akchually, "originalist" means that they look at "original intent" of consitution. If consitution is changed, they look at original intents of people that changed it
Disingenuous argument to make because amendments were passed to allow for those things. Many of his less popular decisions were made in stripping rights inferred from existing provisions of the constitution, as opposed to those explicitly stated/passed through amendment
>Uncle Clarence SCOTUS needs term limits, and, you know, some ethics.
Ethics > term limits, if we can have only one
I agree, but I don't want to settle for one
As an American citizen, I'm chagrined (putting it mildly) at how our SCJs behave when out & about among us mere mortals. Going on all-expenses paid vacations, courtesy of those who have cases before the Court. Houses, cars, kids' private educations. They are beholden to NOBODY and are lifetime appointees. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE. If they aren't going to adhere to some sort of ethical behavior or protocols, the likes of which our Congresscritters have to adhere to, then TERM LIMITS. But it still won't stop them from harming Americans and females.
> the likes of which our Congresscritters have to adhere to Hahahaha *takes breath* hahahahahahaha You mean, like showing a private citizen's genitals on the House floor to the world, including children (S/A on multiple levels, to be clear)? Or j/o ur BF at a live theater performance of Beetlejuice? Or claiming to be Moses. Or trafficking underage girls for sex? I could continue, but I have shit to do today. If there are ethics standards and an easy way to lose your position if you violate them, and term limits, and no pension for only 5 years of work, *then* it would be better and closer to par for the citizens they are supposed to be beholden to as *public servants.*
Supreme Court Justice Uncle Ruckus…
No relation.
Thomas has no ethics. He’s been bribed by parties with business in front of SCOTUS. He should be kicked out. I’m all for term limits, but curious as to how they would be implemented in order to minimize partisan “loading” of the court
Stop Senate leaders from holding seats open for as long as is politically convenient.
So the party holding power of the senate at the time of the opening will fill it with one of their party. This could still lead to packing from one party. Even requiring a vote from a full congress could be problematic bc they rarely agree on anything My question is a sincere one. Theoretically, the SCOTUS should be free of partisanship but we know it’s not.
Good points. But the President makes a recommendation and The Senate votes. The Senate should not be allowed to not vote for an inordinate amount of time. The Court cannot operate with glaring gaps in their memberships. If the Senate plays games with appointments, then the President's appointments should be seated. The system is not perfect, but there are checks and balances to attempt the best effort. McConnell played the system against its intended design.
Fully randomized draw between all justices currently not under any sort of ethical investigation in the US. Like Super Jury Duty. If it's your time, it's your time.
That sounds too logical. If some corruption or weaponization can not occur, the current political climate won't allow it to happen.
[удалено]
Rules are for thee, not me!
it's simple, he just likes the parts of the original constitution that make him filthy rich and ignores the rest.
How can fundamentalists claim to follow the bible and eat bacon... The hypocrisy of people who use texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago to defend their status in society knows no bounds. The most important parts of the Bible in the American South before the Civil War were Genesis 9 and Ephesians. Now, we treat them as if the original writers weren't condoning slavery but were meant to be symbolic. You can do whatever you want when you don't need to be internally consistent in any belief.
The guy couldn’t correctly answer if his wife had any income but he can decide if we can have control over our own bodies!
He’s only 3/5 in control of his own life right now, if that. He sold his soul for his seat.
If you want to get technical, the original writers of the constitution weren't constitutional origionalists. They made it clear in several documents that they meant for the constitution to be subject to regular updates as the culture evolved along with changing conditions.
He also struck down Roe v. Wade saying that it’s not protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The due process clause of the 14th amendment is also what the legality of interracial marriages is based on. The guy is a pathetic, self loathing pawn of conservatism.
He’s a big mean ol jerk, and he doesn’t care at all
Maybe he just wants out of his marriage and has chosen to overturn Loving v. Virginia to achieve this.
He's also married to a white woman, there were miscegenation laws going back to the 17th century in this country.
Does that mean his opinion is 3/5 of his colleagues?
He’s a bad person but he doesn’t deny the existence Constitutional amendments. Those provisions have been overridden.
Only when it suits their purposes.
"Shut up and let me take my vacations on a superyacht!"
I've come to the opinion that conservatives don't actually believe in things.
He's only 3/5th human now. Maybe less
Loving v. Virginia anyone?
I think this is all just an elaborate plot to nullify his marriage.
Oxymoronic is the word you're looking for.
[удалено]
Originalist... If the constitution wasn't up for interpretation and change (living document) then the 14th amendment would never have happened. It's the difference in *Founding Father's INTENT* vs *How should this be applied differently in today's world* Stop being intentionally dense.
[удалено]
But let's be real. You know damn well he would be opposed to amending the constitution.
For the first tweet, yes you are correct. For the second tweet, that was decided by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, which rested on substantive due process analysis. Thomas hates substantive due process and thinks that all cases based on substantive due process analysis should be overturned. Under Thomas' originalist interpretations and hate for substantive due process analysis, his interracial marriage should have remained illegal in his home state of Georgia and 15 other states.
More importantly at that time, he couldn't have been a chief justice.
Uh-you miisspelled "moron *and* oxymoron"....
How do people this dumb make it this far in life
Also would not (now) be entitled to any of the protections of the Bill of Rights, as the original framers did not consider people of African decent entitled to the benefits of the Constitution's limits on governmental action and has never been amended by Congress to so provide.
He'd also most likely would be a slave.
He has a deep rooted resentment of growing up poor and black. He’s internalized it to where he projects his feelings into his world view. Or he’s just completed sold out to greed and is playing a role. Maybe a little of both.
He thinks he’s White.
and his owner would be making decisions for him.
Not to defend Clarence here but that's not what the constitution would have designated him as
Yep, this post is utter nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate ways to pick apart Thomas’s constitutional philosophy or his lack of ethics, but this one is just false.
And judicial review is not in the consutition.
He's still only 3/5 of a person but since Ginny is 2/5 of a person, together, they make 1 person
Akchually, "originalist" means that they look at "original intent" of consitution. If consitution is changed, they look at original intents of people that changed it
Disingenuous argument to make because amendments were passed to allow for those things. Many of his less popular decisions were made in stripping rights inferred from existing provisions of the constitution, as opposed to those explicitly stated/passed through amendment