Boy that's a hell of a kicker for an article. I imagined a lot of terrible stuff - definitely did not have: 'aid & abet his wife in staging a coup that resulted in a terrorist attack on the Capitol and attempt to lynch Congress and the VP.' ...et tu @basso ?
Anyone still believing in strict constructionism, rather than the constitution is a living document interpreted within an evolving modern framework is an idiot. Including the justices still adhering to this archaic framework.
Sam, you're a man with a strong sense of the past: who led the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas?
Thomas basically has to resign in disgrace at this point. Imagine trying to overthrow a government you are already in one of the top seats in.
Hmm... perhaps my U.S. history is a bit lacking. Were their past Supreme Court justices that had spouses promoting the overthrow of the government? and did those justices then rule on a case related to that action?
Nah, it's just Basso's favorite pasttime, when enabled, to use language he feels libs have wrongly griefed him or his ilk over.
Apparently, that too, was a "low tech lynching" effort by Anita Hill and the hypocritical Liberal Elite... Just forget his track record or moral fiber...pretty please.
We need 2022 a race draft...white folks you can have him. He's almost done as much damage as Strom Thurmond. This my boy right here...he listen well too!
On the real though how do you let a racist scumbag that was against you ever having civil rights, let alone marrying a white woman, put you in a position to serve his agenda and betray your people? This guy is a real life Uncle Ruckus…I would say maybe Clayton Bigsby but he had the decency to at least divorce his wife after he found out he was black because well she was a ***** lover.
I disagree. There is a mechanism to update the Constitution, it is called the amendment process. The people who wrote the thing knew what they meant, and they didn't mean some 21st century interpretation of what they were saying in 1789. The amendment process should be used far more frequently, and would be (without issue in many cases) if the court were following a strict constructionist model. For example, the fourth amendment protects a person, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. The court has read into this a myriad of other things to be protected, like the contents of your phone or your email. If the 4th amendment were written today, those would likely be included, but they were not (because they didn't exist) in 1789. If the court had not expanded the 4th amendment, a new amendment would easily pass extending these protections to electronic data, and we wouldn't need to engage in litigation over the issue. You think Clarence Thomas (husband of Ginni Thomas) is against black men being allowed to marry white women?
Clarence Thomas’s Twenty+Years Without Footprints What’s the most important opinion Thomas has written for the majority during his tenure on the Court? none! Neither Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presided over Thomas’s first fourteen years on the Court, nor Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who has run the court for the past eleven, ever assigned Thomas a landmark opinion for the Court. The truth is that Rehnquist and Roberts never trusted Thomas to write an opinion in a big case that could command a majority of even his conservative colleagues. After years at the periphery of the Court, Thomas looks destined to serve out his term at the even more distant fringe.
Do you feel the same way about firearms? For example, automatic weapons and weapons the Constitution writers could not foresee.
I wouldn't have an issue with that being done, assuming it was done on all issues. As with the fourth amendment, I think the 2nd would easily be expanded to include more modern weapons (and an amendment would allow you to tailor just what types of arms you would want allowed). The 2nd was a bit less specific than the 4th (allowing arms, instead of individually listing muskets, cannon, etc. the way the 4th lists persons, houses, papers, and effects), but yes, apply the same standards across the board. I think you missed some context by leaving out the preceding sentence. "The Court is now evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, and Hillary Clinton appears poised to fill the ninth seat, giving liberals a majority for the first time in decades. After years at the periphery of the Court, Thomas looks destined to serve out his term at the even more distant fringe." Obviously that is not what happened. Thomas now sits solidly in the majority and it is the likes of Sotomayor and Kagan that are on the distant fringe.
