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.