Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas moves to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall, left, had a very different view of the purpose of the Supreme Court than his successor, Clarence Thomas. U.S. Supreme Court via Wikimedia CommonsAs public attention focuses on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ close personal and fin...
You'll know how woke your education was when you read this article. If you learned about all or most of these cases in school, you should consider yourself lucky.
Clearance Thomas isn't going to make it past the scrutiny he's being put under to get rid of his agenda.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3957491-cori-bush-joins-fellow-squad-members-in-calling-for-clarence-thomas-impeachment/
https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-124042024.html
The effects of Thurgood Marshall retiring, could be what caused the Notorious RBG to work until her dying day.
OP has Taysacks disease.
One of your parents were missing a chromosome. My brain and spinal cord are fine thank you. Except. I did wake up with an achey back. Luckily for you I'm blaming it all on you now.
The likelihood of him ever resigning on his own is 0%.
Wrong.
You don’t have a “right” to be a queer.
Translation: The nigger had no idea what a court even is, and therefore should not have been on it.
They were already citizens. He did nothing.
I hate him already.
No, he didn’t. How about declaring the Federal Reserve unconstitutional, since it is? He did fucking nothing.
The dindu and the nuffin.
Translation: foreigners who don’t belong in the US and whom the founders would have executed or expelled.
But not anyone he personally hated, of course.
But he didn’t do that at all.
So… he did what was possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to race relations in the US, great.
And the Founders explicitly said otherwise, so eat shit.
Burn in hell, communist.
Neat, and?
WRONG. IT SAYS FUCKING NOTHING ABOUT THAT AT ALL. THAT’S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.
Literally no.
“The only people who deserve to vote, and therefore the only ones with a stake in the survival of the nation.” What’s the fucking problem?
Corporations aren’t people. They can’t make contributions, by law.
“Every man in the nation.” What’s the fucking problem?
And you, personally, say the same thing. what’s the problem?
He was wrong.
“OY VEY YOU HAVE TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SKIN SO THAT YOU DON’T DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SKIN! I CAN’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS!”
Good. Burn it to the ground.
Not independent.
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
I've gotta give it to you, you are pretty literate about Supreme Court Goings-On. I'm genuinely impressed and I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm being serious.
I’m truly just tired of it all. We have two generations raised to be “activists” from the bench who need to be fucking hanged and replaced with people who have guns pointed at their heads, ready to go off if they violate the original doctrines of the Constitution. Not just justices, of course.
T. Well funded storm faggot who spends way too much time on their replies in a small obscure board to be anything other than paid to be here.
Project harder. You’re not fooling anyone, kike.
Wow you're quite special.... You wear a helmet?
Thanks for admitting everything I said is fact. I neither know nor care who you are. Either respond to the post content or fuck off forever, subhuman retard.
Do you also drool?
K, fuck off.
You ok?... You seem quite paranoid bud.
Reported for spam.
Reported for being a tard.
There seems to be lots of hit pieces against Clarence Thomas lately. Even by celebrity unkle tom jew suckups like Samuel L Jackson. That nigger loves to suck jew dicks.
Clarence Thomas is catholic which i find suspect. He's probably the best Justice on the bench now, but not nearly as based as Lysander Spooner and other anarchist individualists.
He's got to go. He doesn't believe in any of the rights that the people before him upheld. They aren't just writing hit pieces, they've brought his ethics issues to people that are asking him to step down or be impeached. The opinion is that he's going to make it be impeachment. They have too much stuff on him, and his wife.
I predict he's either going to step down now, or his reputation will be in shatters and force him to step down before his secrets get him.
I do not agree with the criticism against him.
You sound like you do?
For example, the whole idea of precedence is bullshit. LegalMan on The Quash podcast has explained it the best. Not only is the concept that precedence is etched in stone is complete bullshit, but the concept that the ruling on a federal supreme court case is to become new LAW OF THE LAND and apply to the other 340,000,000 citizens is itself bullshit.
CT wants to revisit everything specifically to overturn it. Did you forget about his wife? The one he made public disparaging statements about?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/24/wife-of-supreme-court-justice-thomas-texted-trump-chief-about-overturning-2020-election-report.html
The same white wife the black man has a prenup with? Prenups in 2023 don't account for your marriage becoming void because the husband overturned the ruling that made interracial marriages legal.
That man has to go. He's either being blackmailed, others or he's putting himself first, and damn anyone else. His ruling history is also bad. As in unsound judgments bad. CT will have his decisions revisited when he's impeached and 90% have already been torn apart in YouTube with legal lessons as to why.
Seems like you are falling for the corporate jew propaganda.
He's the least threatening justice on the supreme court.
Most of them deserve immediate impalement, such as Kagan and Sotomayor and Breyer and Roberts.
I do not like Sotomayor outside of her rulings. But, I've taken the time to read a few of her rulings. I was very upset to realize the person I was reading about was the same person I was seeing with Pelosi doing dumb shit.
Also, my son has a habit of watching people that read entire bills, and explaining them. I'm not interested in all of them, but some of them he still has questions. Which means I have to view the material to understand his question.
You can get a brief opinion on every judge we currently have with this case
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-tackles-religious-bias-claim-against-postal-service-2023-04-18/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/politics/groff-dejoy-supreme-court-religious-liberty/index.html
Don't forget the USPS just had walkouts due to LOWERING wages. Packages are slow like it was Christmas season, and now they took it to court that they can change a schedule whenever. They were already a shit place to work. Now they are on the, 'don't bother" lists, and this ruling was the icing on the cake.
https://www.dailydot.com/news/usps-rural-post-office-pay-cut/
It's interesting you like the ones that side more often with companies over people.
you are linking to the curated facts and twisted lies of reuters, cnn, and dailydot
Are you coming up with these ideas on your own, or just gradually allowing these propaganda outlets mold your perception?
You may not like reuters. But, they gave every single judge air time. See for yourself. CNN expanded on, " the judges asked questions" by stating which questions. I did not like rhe way that played out. It's too pro corporate for my taste.
And, the dailydot is an article written about a tiktok my son showed me. I don't have tiktok. But, you can view it in the article. It's personal testimony on the tok with researched details elaborating in the article.
What precisely is there to take issue with?
I gave you an example, and on review I realized I had read more details. I found you those details. I gave you another example, and I found you those details. I'm gonna be honest... your reply was very disheartening Vlad. Disagree with my opinion. And tell me why, just like before. I'll learn something. Just like before. Don't complain about how I'm trying to show you examples of how I learned. I didn't shit talk your source. ( although if it's a smaller channel I would delete it).
I have a very antiwork pro union bias. And that case horrified me. But, that's the most recent case I read about. It's the easiest example. Specifically because you have already made opinions on judges. Why wouldn't you want an example from each and every one. ( On a case I disagree with no less!)
Seems like OP is purposely spreading the jew propaganda.
Prove anything I sourced wrong. Show me where and why.
Source? SOURCE? SAUCE?
Go fuck yourself.