Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

[500,000]

The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception.

Thomas’s entire career as a judge has been building toward the moment when he would be able to declare that law unconstitutional. It would be not only a victory for his approach to the Constitution but also, it seems, a defeat for the enemies who have pursued him for so long: liberals, law professors, journalists—the group that Thomas refers to collectively as “the élites.” Thomas’s triumph over the health-care law and its supporters is by no means assured, but it is now tantalizingly within reach.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz1WXRHYSPd


God Blessed America with Clarence Thomas.

[biggedon]

if you really like Justice Thomas, here's an eye opener for ya:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


his comments, regarding the 14 amendment and the right to bear arms, start of pg. 67

[HomerJ]

this might be another little eye-opener - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...w=1545&bih=841

[Gerry]

his comments, regarding the 14 amendment and the right to bear arms, start of pg. 67

Odd that you point out the 14th Amendment.

This is an amendment targeted by the Tea Party, Bachmann, and Perry for repeal primarily because of this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

As you can see, those that support the abolishing of granting citizenship rights to "persons born" are hoping all over this amendment as being THE focus on changing the constitution.



In regards to Perry specifically, Perry has suggested that Texas could opt for secession from the United States because when Texas came into the Union, it came in as a "Republic", therefore an independent state. Whether kidding or not, his supporters and staff and presidential election advocates politely point out another part of the 14th amendment (funny Perry should mention "treasonous"):

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So true constitutional scholars point out that Gov. Perry himself sits at a precarious point in his career. Point is, whether he is serious or not, he has stated this openly and publicly on several occasions, interviews, and speeches.

[biggedon]

In regards to Perry specifically, Perry has suggested that Texas could opt for secession from the United States because when Texas came into the Union, it came in as a "Republic", therefore an independent state. Whether kidding or not, his supporters and staff and presidential election advocates politely point out another part of the 14th amendment (funny Perry should mention "treasonous"):

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So true constitutional scholars point out that Gov. Perry himself sits at a precarious point in his career. Point is, whether he is serious or not, he has stated this openly and publicly on several occasions, interviews, and speeches.

yeah, Perry is about to stick his foot in doo doo

how can you call for the secession of Texas from the United States on one hand, and not be subject to Section 3?


but no matter what he professes or claims or threatens:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2,14&as_vis=1




Texas v White 1869:

The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.

-------------------------

When, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States



therefore, Texas ain't going no where and he's just talking smack

[Gerry]

yeah, Perry is about to stick his foot in doo doo

Well, shucks son...that's why you hold a big ol' rally for God and Country and the great Red, White, and Blue. Ya' gotta hope people start calling him a good ol' southern boy, a good Christian man, a patriot and a true American...

You want them there people to have short term memory. If you can't baffle them with bullshit, you gotta dazzle them with brilliance.

[500,000]

if you really like Justice Thomas, here's an eye opener for ya:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


his comments, regarding the 14 amendment and the right to bear arms, start of pg. 67

I have looked over about 60 pages from the start and no references. Thomas said a lot of things from the beginnings to present day, but made the statement, the law as in the "light" as he sees it.
I have not had the time to look at the last pages, but will. Just thought I would make a commit.

[Raider]

Is that racism I hear oh so faintly bellowing in the background? It can be tough to tell the racists from the liberals in political discourse these days.

The reason you don't like Clarence Thomas is because he's black.


Forgive me for borrowing the same charges we see from the DNF Liberal elite.

[eeedc]

Is that racism I hear oh so faintly bellowing in the background? It can be tough to tell the racists from the liberals in political discourse these days.

The reason you don't like Clarence Thomas is because he's black.


Forgive me for borrowing the same charges we see from the DNF Liberal elite.

Just because extreme liberals make unfounded charges of racism is not a reason to do so yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Some liberals may dislike Thomas more than a white conservatives because they view Thomas as going against his own kind - but ironicaly it's mostly his fellow blacks disliking Thomas more because he is black (and conservative.) It would be hard to argue that blacks are racist against blacks.

I think it's more similar to the way the upper class disliked FDR because he was a traitor to his class in their eyes, and not really racism or classism.

[randomo]

No matter what his color or political leanings, the fact that Thomas has gone more than five years without asking a single question during oral arguments - a run of silence unprecedented in Supreme Court history - justly makes people wonder about him.

[Raider]

Just because extreme liberals make unfounded charges of racism is not a reason to do so yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right..

I agree 100%... However it wasn't a charge of racism but rather sarcasm, Considering the number of times liberals on this forum assert that race is the primary motive behind any criticism of a black president, I thought it was rather fitting.

[Gerry]

No matter what his color or political leanings, the fact that Thomas has gone more than five years without asking a single question during oral arguments - a run of silence unprecedented in Supreme Court history - justly makes people wonder about him.

Great point. This was brought up recently when there was talk of revisiting Roe v. Wade.