3,753
 

Sep 17 - Clarence Thomas insists supreme court justices do not rule based on politics



ADVERTISEMENT
 
topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot 3X PLAT

most viewed right now
+19  82
63 replies  @games

most viewed right now
+22  69
29 replies  @sports


section  x1   |  0 bx goons and 1 bystanders Share this on Twitter       Share this on Facebook

section news
  
 4 weeks ago '15        #1
727 page views
25 comments


Top Goon  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x185
avatar
Props total: 151011 151 K  Slaps total: 18609 18 K
Sep 17 - Clarence Thomas insists supreme court justices do not rule based on politics
 

 
Supreme court justices do not rule according to personal views and are not politicians, the hardline conservative justice Clarence Thomas said on Thursday evening.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” Thomas said, at Notre Dame University in Indiana.

“So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardise any faith in the legal institutions.”

Earlier this month, Thomas was one of five conservatives who in an emergency “shadow docket” decision let stand an extreme anti-abortion law from Texas.

Supporters of abortion rights fear the move previews a formal overturning of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which guarantees the right, through a case from Mississippi.

We’ve gotten to the point where we’re really good at finding something that separates us,” Thomas said.

He also said: “It’s not about winning and losing at the court.”

Thomas is only the latest justice to insist members of a court on which liberals are outnumbered 6-3 do not rule according to political beliefs.

Last week, the conservative Amy Coney Barrett said “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties” and claimed the court was “not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”.

She was speaking at a Kentucky centre named for Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader who defied convention to block Barack Obama’s third pick to the court, oversaw two picks by Donald Trump including the hugely controversial Brett Kavanaugh, then ripped up his own precedent to rush Barrett’s confirmation in place of a liberal lion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, shortly before the last election.

McConnell looked on as Barrett spoke. The irony did not go unnoticed.

At 83, the liberal justice Stephen Breyer is the oldest member of the court, a target of calls to retire from progressives who see a narrowing window for his replacement by a Democratic White House and Senate.

Breyer has said he does not intend to die on the court, as Ginsburg did, but has not indicated when he might step down.

He has also written a book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. Last weekend he told Fox News Sunday: “I’m there for everybody. I’m not just there for the Democrats. I’m not just there for the Republicans. And I’m not just there because a president was a Democrat who appointed me.”

Joe Biden has promised to put a Black woman on the court. In Peril, a new book out next week, the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa detail how that promise, a political act in itself, was the result of an endorsement from the South Carolina congressman James Clyburn which did much to propel Biden through the Democratic primary and into the Oval Office.

Thomas, the only African American on the court, has been a consistent presence on the hard right since his highly contentious confirmation in 1991, when he was accused of s*xual harassment by a former colleague. At Notre Dame, protesters shouted “I still believe Anita Hill” before being removed.

Thomas said he “almost never” changed his mind as a result of oral arguments. Infamous for rarely speaking during such proceedings, in 2016 he made headlines by breaking a 10-year silence to ask questions in defence of gun rights.

visit this link https://www.theguardian.c .. tices-politics
+1   



best
worst
25 comments
 

 4 weeks ago '15        #2
TheCompanyMan  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 17930 17 K  Slaps total: 1600 1 K
"Lyin-ass btch you ain't sht."

-- DMX interlude
+20   

 4 weeks ago '17        #3
Ifeellikekobe  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x3
Props total: 73876 73 K  Slaps total: 5567 5 K
Shut up Clarence
+9   

 4 weeks ago '16        #4
foshoVoodoo  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x50
Props total: 110299 110 K  Slaps total: 21715 21 K
judas banter
+5   

 4 weeks ago '04        #5
erickonasis  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x2
Props total: 86476 86 K  Slaps total: 9379 9 K
 foshoVoodoo said
kkk banter
Fixed


Every brother ain’t a brother - Chuck D
+10   

 4 weeks ago '16        #6
Proveone  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x4
Props total: 78497 78 K  Slaps total: 5043 5 K
He need to go join his buddy Scalia

+2   

 4 weeks ago '07        #7
joshdogg26  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 25133 25 K  Slaps total: 2968 2 K
stfu clarence
+6   

 4 weeks ago '18        #8
ChrisPartlowFro 
Props total: 31963 31 K  Slaps total: 3671 3 K
The consistency with which the conservative justices have been saying tells you everything you need to know.
+3   

 4 weeks ago '16        #9
Dino87 
Props total: 3329 3 K  Slaps total: 1480 1 K
this man has been groomed into betraying black ppl by ignoring their real problems.


Despite that is offtopic. I can't stand with anything this idiot speaks
+4   

 4 weeks ago '06        #10
imthatinfamous  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 29949 29 K  Slaps total: 8732 8 K
+1   

 4 weeks ago '08        #11
tdnupe3 
Props total: 40017 40 K  Slaps total: 2775 2 K
I mean, TECHNICALLY, he is not wrong.

They rule based on their interpretation of the law.

But that tends to lean one way or the other politically.

As I understand it anyways. I'm no attorney though, so I may have a limited understanding .

@ I would like to know your thoughts on this.
+2   

 4 weeks ago '18        #12
BrooklynDamien  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x2
Props total: 44512 44 K  Slaps total: 3779 3 K
n*gga putting pubes on bi*ches drinks said what?

 4 weeks ago '06        #13
Storchaveli  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x5
Props total: 28103 28 K  Slaps total: 6764 6 K


#ExpandTheCourt
+2   

 4 weeks ago '07        #14
240ka  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 23810 23 K  Slaps total: 6619 6 K
 tdnupe3 said
I mean, TECHNICALLY, he is not wrong.

They rule based on their interpretation of the law.

But that tends to lean one way or the other politically.

As I understand it anyways. I'm no attorney though, so I may have a limited understanding .

@ I would like to know your thoughts on this.
They rule based on their politics
+1   

 4 weeks ago '06        #15
JUICEbox 
Props total: 3556 3 K  Slaps total: 521 521
whether he realizes or not his political beliefs affect the way he thinks so of course it is a determining factor in his decisions, as it is for anyone

 4 weeks ago '08        #16
tdnupe3 
Props total: 40017 40 K  Slaps total: 2775 2 K
 240ka said
They rule based on their politics
Their personal views and their "politics" are two different things. Remember these aren't elected officials. So they don't have "politics" in the sense that a Senator does. They don't have a "base".

Don't get me wrong, I understand exactly what you're saying. But that is the way they VIEW things as opposed to their politics.

I think that we agree, just looking at it from two different lenses.

 4 weeks ago '21        #17
Myron Diamond 
Props total: 1001 1 K  Slaps total: 252 252




 4 weeks ago '18        #18
ChrisPartlowFro 
Props total: 31963 31 K  Slaps total: 3671 3 K
 tdnupe3 said
I mean, TECHNICALLY, he is not wrong.

They rule based on their interpretation of the law.

But that tends to lean one way or the other politically.

As I understand it anyways. I'm no attorney though, so I may have a limited understanding .

@ I would like to know your thoughts on this.
I think your politics can color your interpretation of the law. If you’re more conservative you may have a more conservative interpretation (textualism)
+4   

 4 weeks ago '07        #19
yola  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x59
Props total: 90871 90 K  Slaps total: 11082 11 K
really Clarence?!

there is no science whatsoever in the Supreme Court

can you imagine a 6-3 split on 2+2?

or how about gravity, or the constitution of water or our need for oxygen?

what about a 5-4 split on how to build an engine, lay plumbing or the properties of electricity?

foh, the Supreme Court are fu*king blowhard jokes

their rulings are 100% subjective and arbitrary

none of them have any kind of resume to support being on the top court in the land

they don't earn their spots, they get chosen and their skill level and knowledge has nothing to do with being picked

it's nothing more than legitimized, weapons-grade, agenda-based, nepotistic cronyism

and on top of all that, they wear a fu*king costume for significance which means they have an allegiance to "old days" or they're bringing self-esteem issues to work

did you know there's no law or rule that says a judge has to wear a Grim Reaper dress?
+3   

 4 weeks ago '18        #20
ChrisPartlowFro 
Props total: 31963 31 K  Slaps total: 3671 3 K
 yola said
really Clarence?!

there is no science whatsoever in the Supreme Court

can you imagine a 6-3 split on 2+2?

or how about gravity, or the constitution of water or our need for oxygen?

what about a 5-4 split on how to build an engine, lay plumbing or the properties of electricity?

foh, the Supreme Court are fu*king blowhard jokes

their rulings are 100% subjective and arbitrary

none of them have any kind of resume to support being on the top court in the land

they don't earn their spots, they get chosen and their skill level and knowledge has nothing to do with being picked

it's nothing more than legitimized, weapons-grade, agenda-based, nepotistic cronyism

and on top of all that, they wear a fu*king costume for significance which means they have an allegiance to "old days" or they're bringing self-esteem issues to work

did you know there's no law or rule that says a judge has to wear a Grim Reaper dress?
I’m just curious what’s a Supreme Court worthy resume? Because you might be surprised to learn many of our justices have always been blowhards…

Heard of Taney?

 4 weeks ago '06        #21
ehizzy3  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 19035 19 K  Slaps total: 1476 1 K
This guy ain’t go gangster his real name is Clarence
+1   

 4 weeks ago '06        #22
Skateboard T  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x6
Props total: 88815 88 K  Slaps total: 14205 14 K
 tdnupe3 said
I mean, TECHNICALLY, he is not wrong.

They rule based on their interpretation of the law.

But that tends to lean one way or the other politically.

As I understand it anyways. I'm no attorney though, so I may have a limited understanding .

@ I would like to know your thoughts on this.
For what my opinion as a rookie attorney is worth, I think it’s a chicken/egg type of scenario. You can’t really say whether the politics influenced the judicial philosophy or whether the philosophy influenced the politics.

But you’re right, the manner in which a justice chooses to interpret the constitution tends to correlate pretty closely to the political spectrum with textualists/originalists arguing for more conservative rules while the living constitutionalists are typically advocating for liberal rules

Which makes sense when you think about it, conservatives are less likely to embrace a change they enjoy staying the course and giving power to states vs big government. That’s what textualism gets you. With the living constitution, you get to apply the historical concepts to modern context and add things under the umbrella of terms that you’re interpreting based on general intent behind the law and not the text, so liberals get to expand the power of the federal bench in those cases

I think they’re all just advocating for what they want and using whatever philosophy they have to do it though. Clarence Thomas is the most transparent in it where he’ll argue against overturning precedent so much that he wasn’t to overturn precedent that overturned precedent which…is completely antithetical to his textualist/originalist stance lol

The thing is that with the liberals, they get to use both, if they want to narrow a rule their philosophy allows it,’if they want to expand a rule their philosophy allows it. Textualists don’t get that much freedom so they have to do a lot of gymnastics when they do indeed expand a rule.


Last edited by Skateboard T; 09-19-2021 at 06:09 AM..

 4 weeks ago '05        #23
halfadash 
Props total: 4594 4 K  Slaps total: 140 140
Only Clarence I respect out on these streets...


+2   

 4 weeks ago '18        #24
No Religion  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x5
Props total: 32949 32 K  Slaps total: 2428 2 K
 halfadash said
Only Clarence I respect out on these streets...


Don't forget the 5th Beatle


+1   

 4 weeks ago '12        #25
TrillSwag  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
Props total: 55428 55 K  Slaps total: 8598 8 K
He’s right it’s all about dark money. They rule towards whoever liking their pockets more
+1   



Sign me up
 
 

yesterday...


most viewed right now
+304online now  34
Video inside My Man Can't Be a Security Guard No More After This....
178 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
+35online now  25
[Fat Loss] The 10 most Underrated foods for fat loss (and staying lean)
47 comments
2 days ago
@misc
most viewed right now
+99online now  21
Video inside When y'all both notice red flags!!
77 comments
24 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
online now  17
Video inside HALLOWEEN k*llS (2021) | US Premiere
56 comments
18 hours ago
@movies
back to top
register register Follow BX @ Twitter search BX privacyprivacy