Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
Win uses cookies, which are essential for the site to function. We don't want your data, nor do we share it with anyone. I accept.
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

7
This is why CT is under a microscope. He pushes for constant revision of past judgments. Quote inside. (news.yahoo.com)
posted 165 days ago by Michalusmichalus 165 days ago by Michalusmichalus +9 / -2
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...
news.yahoo.com
31 comments share
31 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (31)
sorted by:
▲ 2 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] 2 points 165 days ago +2 / -0

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.

Thomas’ predecessor on the court, Thurgood Marshall, was a civil rights lawyer before becoming a justice. In 1991, in his final opinion before retiring after a quarter century on the court, Marshall warned that his fellow justices’ growing appetite to revisit – and reverse – prior decisions would ultimately “squander the authority and legitimacy of this Court as a protector of the powerless.”

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.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– HusbandsLead 1 point 165 days ago +2 / -1

OP has Taysacks disease.

permalink save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Ok_Pragmatism_7926 0 points 165 days ago +3 / -3

The likelihood of him ever resigning on his own is 0%.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– TallestSkil 0 points 165 days ago +3 / -3

directly implicating Americans’ rights to sexual privacy

Wrong.

and same-sex marriage.

You don’t have a “right” to be a queer.

Few phrases could so aptly capture Thurgood Marshall’s vision of the court’s work as “protector of the powerless.”

Translation: The nigger had no idea what a court even is, and therefore should not have been on it.

Marshall’s work to advance Black citizenship is well known

They were already citizens. He did nothing.

but he also fought for expanded rights for women

I hate him already.

and the indigent

No, he didn’t. How about declaring the Federal Reserve unconstitutional, since it is? He did fucking nothing.

the accused and convicted

The dindu and the nuffin.

adherents to marginalized religions

Translation: foreigners who don’t belong in the US and whom the founders would have executed or expelled.

and those with unpopular viewpoints.

But not anyone he personally hated, of course.

enforcement of constitutional rights “frequently requires this Court to rein in the forces of democratic politics,” to protect the powerless from the tyranny of the majority.

But he didn’t do that at all.

Marshall’s signature accomplishment as a lawyer in Brown v. Board of Education was to convince the court to overturn the doctrine of separate but equal that had emerged after the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

So… he did what was possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to race relations in the US, great.

Marshall argued passionately and repeatedly that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment

And the Founders explicitly said otherwise, so eat shit.

assault on precedent

Burn in hell, communist.

the lack of modern voting discrimination made the act unnecessary.

Neat, and?

weakening the vitality of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which fortifies the separation between church and state.

WRONG. IT SAYS FUCKING NOTHING ABOUT THAT AT ALL. THAT’S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a constitutional right to a lawyer for indigent criminal defendants.

Literally no.

Those in need of constitutional protection in Thomas’ view are more likely to be property owners

“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 making campaign contributions

Corporations aren’t people. They can’t make contributions, by law.

or gun owners.

“Every man in the nation.” What’s the fucking problem?

Indeed, Thomas claims his position requiring colorblindness is a better path toward full Black citizenship.

And you, personally, say the same thing. what’s the problem?

Marshall always looked at the issue from a different perspective, arguing that access to opportunities was essential not only for the Black students affected but for the nation at large.

He was wrong.

“If we are ever to become a fully integrated society, one in which the color of a person’s skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her,” Marshall wrote in 1977, “we must be willing to take steps to open those doors.”

“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!”

That turn would be yet another reversal squandering Marshall’s vision of the court.

Good. Burn it to the ground.

The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site

Not independent.

It was written by: Daniel Kiel, University of Memphis.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– RentFreeCrisisAct 1 point 164 days ago +1 / -0

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– TallestSkil 2 points 164 days ago +2 / -0

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– Ok_Pragmatism_7926 -2 points 165 days ago +3 / -5

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– TallestSkil -2 points 165 days ago +2 / -4

buzzwords only paid shills have ever said

all posted positions are either objective falsehoods or diametrically opposite to everything that everyone on this website supports

Project harder. You’re not fooling anyone, kike.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Clobro -1 points 164 days ago +1 / -2

Wow you're quite special.... You wear a helmet?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– TallestSkil 1 point 164 days ago +2 / -1

[not even pretending to reply]

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Clobro 1 point 164 days ago +1 / -0

Do you also drool?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– TallestSkil 0 points 164 days ago +1 / -1

K, fuck off.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Clobro 0 points 164 days ago +1 / -1

You ok?... You seem quite paranoid bud.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– TallestSkil -1 points 164 days ago +1 / -2

Reported for spam.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Clobro 1 point 163 days ago +1 / -0

Reported for being a tard.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ -1 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

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.

permalink save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler 0 points 165 days ago +2 / -2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler 0 points 165 days ago +2 / -2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] 0 points 165 days ago +1 / -1

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/

Critically, however, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were sympathetic to arguments made by the Postal Service that granting Groff's request might cause morale to plummet among the other employees. Kavanaugh noted that "morale" among employers is critical to the success of any business. And several justices nodded to the financial difficulties the USPS has faced over the years.

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.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Vlad_The_Impaler -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

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?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] 1 point 165 days ago +1 / -0

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!)

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– HusbandsLead 0 points 165 days ago +2 / -2

Seems like OP is purposely spreading the jew propaganda.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Michalusmichalus [S] 0 points 165 days ago +1 / -1

Prove anything I sourced wrong. Show me where and why.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– HusbandsLead -1 points 165 days ago +1 / -2

Source? SOURCE? SAUCE?

Go fuck yourself.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2023.37.01 - 6jzfk (status)

Copyright © 2023.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy