Clarence Thomas gibt Bonkers Grund, dass Scotus festgelegte Gesetze aufrissen
https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-gives-bonkers-reason-for-scotus-to-tear-up-settled-laws/
Clarence Thomas gibt Bonkers Grund, dass Scotus festgelegte Gesetze aufrissen
https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-gives-bonkers-reason-for-scotus-to-tear-up-settled-laws/
36 Kommentare
Because his mother needs a new house?
„Clarence Thomas is Bonkers.“
seems more concise
>Thomas has long been keen to revisit some of the Supreme Court’s most landmark decisions—especially now that the Court has a conservative majority of six to three.
I believe this sentence is *supposed* to read „most landmark *liberal* decisions“…
No because he’s getting a newer Winnebago with deluxe slide outs.
Clarence Thomas’s entire history of jurisprudence is „bonkers reasoning.“
No, seriously. I mean it. Go find anything he’s ever authored from the bench and tell me how it makes sense to anyone except someone who decided a conclusion and will do anything to manufacture the result he’s decided. He is not a thunderous legal mind. He’s a sexual predator and apparently completely unaware how little the motor coach will matter once the US decides „separate but equal“ should return and apply to black men in black robes, as well.
For free?
If the headline has bonkers you know it’s the daily beast.
Sitting around making bonkers decisions seems better to him than going home to that bonkers wife.
> ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train,…”
*We The People* are the one driving the train, not the courts.
I can’t wait for this guy to go.
The most important question I have after reading the article is:
>Thomas also used a bizarre metaphor to sling insults at his fellow Court members for following precedent, ABC reported.
I looked but could not find. What was the metaphor?!
u/thedailybeast drop a link or somethin, wtf
Clarence Thomas is a racist, sexist, anti-constitution republican.
And because he’s probably on the Epstein logs. Or he’s decided Trumpism is better for him. It’s not because he’s a lawyer.
Maybe a legal group could bring a suit to challenge Loving v Virginia. I’d love to see the pretzel logic he would employ to answer that.
I cannot recommend enough the Behind the Bastards multipart episode on Thomas. It highlights his insanity but also explains the weird method to his madness.
Ahh, Clarence Thomas. The interracially married man who concurs with reconsidering the very law that allows his marriage..
I guess it makes sense since he thinks he sees a white man when he looks in the mirror.
Granted I can’t stand a lot of my own ppl these days either… but that’s only because so many of them have become such fucking intolerable morons, I feel like I should get a t-shirt that says „Not a piece of shit racist or bigot“.
If prior rulings are not settled law, than any rulings from this SCOTUS cannot be considered settled law. This bonkers reasoning of Justice Thomas puts all law in the flux of the moment.
Precedent is rarely simply just *changed.* There has generally been new evidence, or new circumstances that led to the change. As an example, Plessy v Ferguson established the “separate, but equal” doctrine for segregation. However, the following years showed that this was simply not being enforced, and showed that separate could never truly be equal. This led to the change in Brown v Board of Education that changed that precedent.
But this Supreme Court isn’t looking for new circumstances, or changed situations to overturn precedent. They’re simply getting any case that they can in front of the court and saying “yeah, those other guys were just wrong.” There’s no new circumstances that warrant changing the established precedent, just a different legal philosophy on the bench.
He should’ve taken the RV when John Oliver offered it.
I want to scold Daily Beast for its overuse of the word „bonkers“ in headlines, but Christ if it’s not an apt term for this whole administration and its enablers.
Pube hair on a coke can
Anita Hill was right.
Clarance Thomas has always been bonkers. Listen to the Behind the Bastards podcast about this asshat. Source: YouTube https://share.google/TWKpCg2IXybLwMxdy
He takes bribes.
can we get a competency exam done on this man? he must be going insane.
If prior case law is not relevant then neither are the rulings of the Supreme Court to any future ruling by any other lower court.
Can’t have it both ways, can’t kill all the sacred cows then pretend your own decisions are sacred cows.
Check out the r/behindtgebastards Clarence Thomas saga. Dude is such a sack of shit.
“I like getting free shit”
Clarence Thomas is bought. He and ginny deserve jailtime for their conflicts of interest.
Something tells me he’s not expecting leopards to eat his face.
Was the reason Free Cruises?
Anita was right
It’s really $$$$$$
Let’s not let him lie too much. It’s the $$$$$
Why are we surprised that the most corrupt judge is doing bonkers things?
The asshole would vote to bring back slavery if someone paid him
One name I wouldn’t be surprised to be on the Epstein list. That pervert Thomas….
There needs to be a law forcing 100% financial transparency for judges so the public can see every little financial transaction they make and it needs to be called the Harlan Crow Act. Dude shouldn’t be allowed to own a watch we don’t know about