He's pretty lazy also. He will go down as one of the worst SC justices of all time. It's like he's there to collect a paycheck. Seldom asks questions, seldom write opinions. He literally just votes party line.
Quite the contrary, he is the best Supreme Court Justice of all time. He bases his rulings on the Constitution of the United States, instead of whatever made up nonsense the other Justices are relying on to decide there is a right to abortion, or that you can't grow however much wheat you like, or that the federal government is empowered to regulate growing mar1juana, or that you can force a private citizen to bake you a cake that he doesn't want to bake. He is the only one that seems to understand that the means to change the Constitution when times change is not to interpret it differently, but to amend it, as is provided for in the text.
The ABA standing committee of the Federal Judiciary has voted on every SCJ nomination since 1990. The ONLY SCJ nominee that did NOT receive the highest rating (Well qualified) by unanimous vote are below. Thomas received the lowest rating (Not Qualified) by a minority. They had it right. Supreme Court Nominations (americanbar.org) Barrett - Well qualified by majority - Qualified by minority Thomas - Qualified by majority - Not Qualified by minority
commodore being more upset that january 6th insurrectionists were arrested than the fact that they participated in an insurrection is pathetic af. commodore not understanding that trumps chief of staff gave the january 6th committee those texts is sad af. commodore being more upset that mrs thomas texts were made public than the fact that as the wife of a supreme court justice, she was clearly involved in trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election is par-for-the-course af. youre really turning into the ted cruz of clutchfans dude. you keep saying ridiculous stuff and getting mocked for it and you keep coming back for more. you seem to enjoy embarrassing yourself. cruzian af! also, i hope you were as outraged over the republicans patriot act that conservative president george w. bush signed into law as you are about "the left snooping on the texts of private citizens".
Justices to decide what it means to “use” a locomotive https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-to-decide-what-it-means-to-use-a-locomotive/ excerpt: The Supreme Court is poised to decide yet another case involving one of the many federal statutes that govern the nation’s railroads and railworkers. Just like in other recent railroad cases, this one at first glance seems to present only a narrow question about an obscure statute, but methodological questions lurking beneath the surface may end up sharply dividing the justices. The court will hear argument on Monday in LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a case about the scope of the Locomotive Inspection Act. That statute — little-known but vitally important to the railroad industry — requires railroads to perform regular inspections and to implement a host of safety measure for their locomotives, the powered vehicles that pull the rest of the train. If a railroad fails to comply with the statute’s safety and inspection requirements and an employee is injured, the employee can sue the railroad for damages. But the safety and inspection requirements apply only to locomotives that are in “use” — or are “allowed to be used” — on the railroad’s line. more at the link
He is not… The Supreme Court rules that Joe Biden is commander-in-chief. Three justices dissent. The Supreme Court on Friday evening decided, no, it was not going to needlessly insert itself in the military chain of command above President Joe Biden. The Court’s decision in Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 largely halted a lower court order that permitted certain sailors to defy a direct order. A group of Navy special operations personnel sought an exemption from the Pentagon’s requirement that all active duty service members get vaccinated against Covid-19, claiming that they should receive a religious exemption. A majority of the Court effectively ruled that, yes, in fact, troops do have to follow orders, including an order to take a vaccine. The decision is undeniably a win for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary that has prevailed for many decades. But the fact that the Court had to weigh in on this at all — not to mention that three justices, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the majority — is a worrisome sign about America’s judiciary. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a brief opinion laying out why the lower court erred, this court “in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments.” Had the Court ruled the other way in SEALs, it would have effectively placed itself at the apex of the military’s chain of command, displacing Biden as commander-in-chief. But as Kavanaugh correctly notes in his concurring opinion, there is a long line of Supreme Court precedents establishing that courts should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with military affairs. In Gilligan v. Morgan (1973), for example, the Court held that “the complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments,” and that “it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Nevertheless, Judge Reed O’Connor, a notoriously partisan judge in Texas who is best known for a failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ruled in favor of the service members who refused to follow a direct order. And the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused the Navy’s request to stay key parts of O’Connor’s order. That left the responsibility of restoring the military’s proper chain of command to the Supreme Court. Though the Court’s order does not wipe out O’Connor’s decision in its entirety, it temporarily blocks that decision “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.” But the astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that the Supreme Court needed to intervene in this case at all. Order prevailed, but several justices wanted to upend things The most astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that at least three justices dissented. (While it is likely that six justices sided with the Navy here, only four days justices — the three dissenters plus Kavanaugh — chose to reveal how they voted. So it is possible that one other justice silently dissented.) Thomas did not explain why he dissented, but Alito published a brief opinion, joined by Gorsuch, which lays out why he thinks that judges should be allowed to countermand orders handed down to military personnel by their commanders. Among other things, Alito complains that the Navy did not provide service members with a meaningful process they could use to request a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. The Navy provided the Court with several statements from high-ranking officers explaining why it requires nearly every sailor to be vaccinated, and why it generally considers unvaccinated special warfare personnel undeployable. According to Adm. William Lescher, the Navy’s second-highest-ranking officer, Navy vessels have only limited medical facilities. So, if one of the ship’s crew becomes seriously ill, that “would require a return to port or an emergency medical evacuation by helicopter” — potentially forcing the whole ship to abandon its mission to accommodate one unvaccinated service member. Special warfare personnel, moreover, often deploy in very small units. So one member becoming sick is a big blow to the team. And, the Navy argued, special operations “are often conducted in hostile, austere or diplomatically sensitive environments” where a severely ill service member might not be able to obtain local medical care and may need to be evacuated by the Navy — an operation that is itself dangerous and that could force the sick service member’s fellow sailors to risk their lives on his or her behalf. To these concerns, Alito essentially said, “Prove it.” “In order to win at trial,” Alito wrote in response to the Navy’s warnings, “it would not be enough for the Government to posit that sending an unvaccinated Seal on such a mission might produce such consequences.” Rather, the Navy would have to prove that requiring vaccination “is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest it asserts in light of the present nature of the pandemic, what is known about the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of the vaccines, prevalent practices, and the physical characteristics of Navy Seals and others in the Special Warfare community.” I want to emphasize the sheer enormity of what Alito is suggesting here. Once the Supreme Court permits a single servicemember to defy a direct order, that opens the door to any member of the armed services who disagrees with an order running to court to seek an exemption. Think of the kinds of orders that military personnel have to obey — “take that hill,” “guard this prisoner,” “cease fire.” And even if Alito did not intend for his dissent to apply to such battlefield orders, his dissent could effectively neutralize major military assets while religious liberty cases brought by service members are being litigated. Imagine, for example, if the captain of an aircraft carrier is ordered to deploy his ship close to Ukraine — but the captain refuses because, for religious reasons, that captain believes that Vladimir Putin should prevail in his war against Ukraine. The Court has understood for many decades that the military simply cannot function if its members think orders may be optional. As the Supreme Court held in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), “the essence of military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’” Permitting service members to seek exemptions from the courts, Goldmanexplains, would undermine service members’ “habit of immediate compliance with military procedures and orders” — a habit that “must be virtually reflex with no time for debate or reflection.” At the end of the day, every service member must know who their commander is, and everyone must respect the chain of command. There can only be one person at the apex of that chain, and it can either be Joe Biden or Samuel Alito. And, as Kavanaugh notes in his opinion, the Constitution is very clear about who is at the top of that chain. It says, in unambiguous terms, that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” https://www.vox.com/22996799/supreme-court-biden-navy-seal-vaccine-austin-covid
Yes he follows the Constitution except when he doesn't. In Bush v Gore (a case he should've recused himself from since his son was working for the Bush campaign) he joined the majority in overriding their own stated beliefs in Federalism to overrule the state of Florida. Then they went on to say that case couldn't be used as a precedent. In the most recent ruling regarding the texts of his wife (another case he should've recused himself from) he dissented from the other justices in regard to Congress' legitimate oversight.
What text in the United States Constitution did he ignore in Bush v. Gore? What text in the United States Constitution did he ignore in his vote to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure of claimed privileged records? I would disagree with your view of what constitutes Congress' legitimate oversight.
Originalist claims they know the original meaning. A claim that boiled down to being the sole truth interpretation of the original meaning of legal text. That simply is not possible. There is no such thing. Words are not math formulas or logical 1 and 0 and they are all up to interpretation by Judges with plenty of room for ambiguity. If they are like math formulas, we wouldn't need Judges to interpret them. If you go back to 1778, can anyone say that every judge at the time understood the Constitution in the same way? Of course not - it's an impossibility. Every judge has preferences and views that affect how they see things and interpret words' meanings. At best, they are interpreting what they think were the original meanings based on their perception and their understanding of history - usage of words, culture, and so on - that historians can have very different interpretations. Given historians don't have the same interpretation, how can there be any chance of a 'right' original interpretation by judges nearly 250 years later? But at best isn't even reality - the reality has been seen recently by "originalist" judges ruling based on personal and political beliefs, which of course change with time. Not so different from the other side. Some of them like the cover under a cool marketing brand while some truly and wrongly believe they are the sole interpretation of the true original meanings. I frankly believe the latter is a nut case.
Glad to see your ignored that piece where Clarence Thomas "the best SC justice of all time" didn't bother to explain why he went dissented on something that is clearly stated in the Constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Uncle Thomas is a scumbag and only cares about his side winning, he doesn't give two ****s about the Constitution.
I sympathize with many of the arguments above, but it's just complicated. Over the last 3 years (in addition to a lifetime of learning what we did in school), I think I've spent hundreds of hours reading, listening to podcasts, watching docs and going over primary materials regarding the constitution, con law, and all sorts of history of how the US government and SCOTUS works. In summary, it's kind of complicated, understandbly confusing, and there's not always a clear right or wrong. I don't consider myself an expert, but I nerd out of this stuff.
I would say he was trying to resolve a conflict in Constitutional provisions. The President is the Commander in Chief over the military, but the First Amendment protects religious liberty, which has been found to be a fundamental right (and has been previously applied in the context of the military). Where fundamental rights are concerned, there are higher standards that apply (specifically strict scrutiny) and the government is required to use the least restrictive means to accomplish a legitimate government purpose. The dissent was saying that no evidence had been presented to show that there was any legitimate government purpose (for example, can they show that mission readiness would be compromised even if a SEAL became infected with COVID-19), nor did the court make any inquiry into whether or not the least restrictive means was being used. He certainly never disagreed that the President is the Commander in Chief, only in how the court was handling the interaction of that fact with the rights of the litigants.
This is a fair take, but so are the criticisms of it. Varying levels of scrutiny are simply Supreme Court created doctrine anyways. It was Carolene Products footnote four that said fundamental rights and minority rights should be held to those higher levels. I think the problem is (and I skimmed the article briefly) that if you try to do this balancing act in the same manor as like a prisoner on death row claiming a rights violation, it just screws up the functioning of the military. I'm not saying soldiers have no rights, but when you're volunteering to be a soldier, you're giving up a lot, and having some Thomas or Scalia (edit: I meant Alito) intepretation of what is reviewable in the chain-of-command is not practical. Is it arguably consitutionally correct? Yes, but so is the other side to equal or better merits imo. There could be so many dumb lawsuits by soldiers not wanting to do stuff, just like all the dumb lawsuits from prisoners. Do some of them have merit? Sure, but most are just a waste of time, which is easier to do from a functioning governmment standpoint if it's coming from prisoners.
Article II Section 1. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: " In Bush V Gore. The USSC overruled FL's own procedure based on an equal protection argument. An argument that Thomas has himself rejected previously. Since these text were in regard to a potential insurrection Article I Section 8 applies: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" In this case Congress is carrying out an investigation into the causes of that attempted insurrection.
Wow, that's pretty crazy to use Alabama to DEFEND the conservative SCOTUS. In Alabama, the conservative majority blocked redrawing Republican friendly gerrymandering that was giving blacks less power under the Purcell principle, arguing it was too close to the election. So the courts were defending disenfranchisement of black voters. In Wisconsin, they aren't using that principle, but instead an entirely different one - saying it's ok to change maps just before an election now, well because this would benefit black voters. Yeah, the Supreme Court definitely has a political agenda and it will go down in history as biased.
They didn't overrule the state legislature, they overturned a court decision. Florida still appointed, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof directed, their electors. The issue was different precincts in Florida counting identical ballots differently. So no, there was no constitutional text ignored there. Allowing or not the exercise of executive privilege as to certain documents or texts in the investigation of an event that happened over a year ago would not at all impact the ability of Congress to call forth the militia. This is like a Dhalsim level stretch. If these are the best examples you have of Thomas not following the Constitution over the last 30 years, then I guess he did a pretty good job.
Bottom line, the Supreme Court made the decision to end the election in Florida and disallow a statewide recount because it felt that it could not be done before Dec 12th under safe harbor provisions. Today that would not have stopped Trump from getting a recount in any state he wanted.
As Sweet Lou noted the stopped a recount based on a safe harbor provision and equal protection. The FL legislature hadn't decided yet on the disposition of the electors at that time. The key point in that section was "suppress an insurrection". Further I'm not aware that dealing with an attempted insurrection had a time limit.
Yes. Neither of which were related to anything the Florida legislature had done (other than establishing the original framework of the state election, which the SCOTUS did not abrogate in Bush v. Gore). There is just no way to go from the court stopping a recount because a) it was violating equal protection and b) there would be no way to undertake a new recount using equal standards that could be completed in time to certify the electors and to conclude that the SCOTUS was not allowing the Florida legislature to determine how electors would be selected. They had already done so and the SCOTUS was enforcing existing law. They have the power to call forth the militia. Suppress an insurrection is what they can have the militia do. If Congress determined that the January 6 riot was an insurrection, they could have voted to call forth the militia to suppress it. That has nothing to do with subpoenaing documents a year after the "insurrection" is over. The time allowed to deal with a crime that has already happened is called the statute of limitations. It applies to law enforcement, which is part of the executive branch. The legislature is there to write the laws, not enforce them.
