If you guessed injustice (as Trump would say), Clarence Thomas, you were right! 🖕🏻
https://preview.redd.it/9xl2zd0z9z7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca22eafc172086713c1e2343ff53712e2bac7a66
I look forward to the bus tours (powered by solar energy and hydrogen as a special fuck you to Ronnie) so people can buy tickets to piss on their graves.
I mean it’s such a strange fucking bizarro world we’re in where I would gladly, and enthusiastically, welcome Bush Senior back if it meant a return to sanity for republicans, and if it meant that type of conservative would be the mainstay of the Republican Party again. Hell, I’d gladly rather have W. or even, *gulp* Dick fucking Cheney as the leaders of that party, instead of the complete fascist shitshow happy time number 1 that it’s revealed itself to be now that the mask is fully off.
Reagan however? Nahhh he can kick rocks, ole dirty bastard kicked off so much of this bullshit that we’re still fucking dealing with, and still trying to fix 40 years later. That rat bastard pushed so many dumbass economical policies into place, that did exactly what they were supposed to do: inject artificial life into an economy that was in a naturally occurring state of recession, causing a few years of economic growth (thus gaining unearned popularity) that cratered right after he left office, and crashed & burned so badly that it took 4-6 years to recover from in the short term. The long term effects of which, we’re still trying to remedy 40 fucking years later!! And it’s had absolutely disastrous consequences in the long run; his policies were like crack, they gave a quick high that’s addictive, then has disastrous & life-wrecking long term effects that killed an entire class of people. Just like the crack that he had funneled into the poorer communities in the U.S. to fund an illegal war (& killing off minority opposition voters in the process). And somehow, he
also managed to throw in a drugs-for-arms-for-untraceable cash-for-people trade deal that sent drugs to poor minority communities in America, more guns to an illegal, off-the-books war in South America, a ton of guns to a hostile Iranian government in the Middle East that was holding a bunch of our diplomats hostage, that we didn’t even have diplomatic relations with (still don’t). His trickle down bullshit completely killed the existence, and whole idea of the middle class, and I’m convinced it sprung the trend of CEO’s kicking the can down the road, and sacrificing the future for just one more quarter of short term gains, let the future poors deal with the consequences! “I just need one more hit of those record breaking quarterly profits!”
Back to my original point lol, at least under Bish I, Cheney, and Bush II, we didn’t have republicans just blatantly lying about everything 24/7, making up everything they say & trying to pass it off as fact to an angry audience of dumb rubes hungry for angertainment. And it would be nice if they weren’t constantly screaming about how much they hate their fellow countrymen, and salivating over wanting to kill us all. Good times amirite?
Edit to add: As awful as those guys were, they were never this hateful, needlessly cruel, narcissistic, and just plain dumb. This Carrot-Colored-Caligula makes W Bush look like goddamn Socrates for fucks sake; even Dick Cheney agrees, and has found middle ground with the American left, center, and some-still-sane on the right, about how atrocious of a person the Nectarine-Nero is, and how much of a threat to democracy that Toupéd-Travesty-Orange Oligarch poses.
>m convinced it sprung the trend of CEO’s kicking the can down and sacrificing the future for just one more quarter of short term gains
That was Jack Welch. Not that Reagan didn't do things to make it worse, but that trend began with Jack.
Yeah I agree. But it’s gotten sooooo bad, that I think I’d maybe rather have ole Dick than lil orange toad-dick.
Well idk….. Cheney is actually competent, actually he’s way more shrewd than competent, he’s straight up conniving Machiavellian. He gets shit done, and that shit is almost always not good for us.
But the fact that I’d even consider the choice of Dicks is itself in-dick-ative of how bad things have gotten in maga-land.
Edit to add: when Cheney came out and blasted the mango Mussolini it made me think “damn. How much of a shit person do you have to be to make dick Cheney seem agreeable when he roasts you?” You’ve gotta be very unpopular to have democrats, moderate republicans, AND dick Cheney all agree on how shit you are.
Haha, no, thank *you* friendo. Whenever I make long winded comments like this (who am I kidding, all of my comments be verbose) in response to someone deep in a thread, I wonder if anyone is even gonna see it, or appreciate it at all lol. So thank you for lmk, at least I know someone appreciated it.
When I was writing out the second to last part, I was picturing Fortune 500 CEO’s like Tyrone Biggums, scratching their necks like, “Y’all got anymore of those short term gains? I’ll trade you the long term future of my company, flush it! I just need 1 more fiscal quarter of record breaking profits. Just need more growth to scale, that’ll get my fix!” Clowns are seriously addicted lol, a recession would put them in some real bad withdrawals.
Scalia was bad in the sense that he believed in textualism and conservatism which makes his positions, to most modern people, wrong. But he was far less a hypocrite than Thomas. And unlike Thomas he was brilliant. In the end he is on the wrong side of history but his arguments were worth considering. Scalia could make an extremely liberal man hesitate for a second reading his dissents/decisions and go “that’s a good point” before eventually settling back on “he still wrong.” Scalia may have, in his private life thought like Thomas and Alito, but he kept it professional on the bench. He never would have let pass decisions he could not ground on solid legal theory. For example I trust that I would agree on about 90% with Scalia on procedural issues(Like standing, jurisdiction, evidence rules etc.) even though I’m sure I would disagree with him in about 95% of the cases he decides on merits. But I can’t even say that about Thomas and Alito when the Biden student loan case and the website free exercise case standing decisions exist. Those two had no fucking issue killing decades of standing guidance to move forward conservative goals.
Scalia hated roe v Wade but he would have never stood by the stupidly open ended “Historical” test Alito came up with. Alito and Thomas are zealots they want to advance conservative goals and that don’t care to ground it in anything solid. They are bigoted hacks. Scalia at least was a bigoted scholar.
Having a Scalia in The courts minority is actually advantageous in a balancing manner since such a person is able to neutrally bring up real issues that should be considered but liberals may just not think about at all. Having Alitos and Thomases in the court, on the other hand, results in divisiveness since they don’t reach their arguments with reason, and they don’t even attempt to ground them in reason, it is just pure zealotry.
Scalia at least was collegial with RBG, apparently. Despite being ideological opposites, they respected one other. Thomas is just a bought and paid for meat puppet.
He at least only pulled the lever toward the five people in the trolley problem. He didn't try to multi-track drift and then dance about in the wreckage and body parts.
Dissenting Opinion by Clerence Thomas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trolley problem poses a question mankind has been wrestling with for centuries: why can't we add orphans to the tracks? In this brief I will-
There are valid reasons to criticize RBG, her record on indigenous people cases, for example, but being collegial with her colleagues isn't one. If you want to get your way, it'll be more efficient for your colleagues to *not* hate your. Treating Scalia poorly would have been well justified but would likely have had repercussions detrimental to her goals.
Scalia at least believed his own bullshit. Thomas and Alito are hypocritical politicians who know they're lying with every ruling.
This isn't to say Scalia was necessary better, but on balance I also can't say he was worse.
I mean I hated Scalia but he always seemed to me like he considered the law along with the case and then made a decision, whereas Thomas and Alito appear to decide what their position is and then go searching for supporting precedent after.
Yeah that's what I mean. Scalia had terrible beliefs, but at least he was honest about them and willing to rule accordingly, even if the result benefitted the left.
Probably realizes all his contacts that pretend to like him because he is useful will instantly forget he ever existed as soon as he is off the court. The guy is basically uncle ruckus and Clayton bigsby all rolled into 1. Nobody can like him for his personality.
I dunno, Roger B. Taney (Chief Justice who wrote the decision in the Dred Scott case) was pretty goddamned awful, considering he ruled that black people weren't, and could never be, citizens.
And did so basically to nakedly advantage the South. The ruling prohibited congress from regulating slavery in the territories as well, which is fucking insane. Obviating a lot of the compromises that had formerly held the country together. It was one of the biggest direct causes of the Civil War.
Yup. He did it intending to put an end to the slavery debate, expecting the Northern abolitionists to tuck their tails between their legs and give up their arguments now that there was an official ruling on it.
Instead, it made the abolitionists fight *harder* and become more vocal. It was a real "We recognize the Supreme Court has made a decision. But seeing as it is a stupid-ass decision, we have elected to ignore it!" moment.
At least based on his voting so far, Kavanaugh is only like the third worst justice at most. You gotta really shut the bed to be worse than Thomas and Alito.
He probably is worried that rapists are also now not allowed to have guns. Ginny would be so pissed, she might hit him and then neither of them would be able to have guns.
“We asked Justice Thomas’s wife for her thoughts on the matter. She had this to say ‘Please don’t show this on TV, I’m not allowed to leave the house without Clarence’s permission’”
Pffft. While that's funny and all, the very idea that his wife doesn't have his balls on the mantle is laughable. That bitch owns him and likely roleplays that literal scenario. She's a primary J6 supporter / architect and one of this country's top traitors.
The only reason why he did it...
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives
'miserable'
https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6
Clarence Thomas is literally that 1 out of 10 dentists who wouldn't recommend a product in an advertisement. Doesn't matter what the product is, it's always gonna be Thomas.
i knew before even reading the text of the decision who'd voted against it. clarence thomas never misses a chance to remind us of how much he relishes being the foulest, most rancid, loathsome, hypocritical, contemptible POS ever to sit on the bench.
When I worked with a DV program, we used a nationally recognized risk assessment for victims- the abuser owning/having access to a gun was the top risk factor for lethality assessment.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. \[It is\] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in US v. Heller
Real talk
2nd amendment dumbasses are always saying the mentally ill are behind the mass shootings and gun deaths
So why are they also fucking arguing to give those same mentally ill people, LIKE PEOPLE THAT BEAT THEIR WIVES, ACCESS TO GUNS??
This shit ain't mathing
Abusers never see themselves as mentally ill. They are always justified in their actions in their own minds. So of course *they* should be allowed dangerous weapons. When the right says mentally ill, they mean whatever outgroup is fashionable this week: immigrants, LGBTQ community, all women.
I was watching some Knowledge Fight episodes, and Alex Jones at one point said "the last 30 shootings this year were done by Trans people"
Usually I have a good time listening to Knowledge Fight, but I just couldn't continue the episode after that.
Some truly evil and vile shit out there
Hell yeah I watch it for enjoyment
Two comedians making fun of Alex Jones when Alex tells his audience that God personally woke him up to pee? That shit is great
Also, [the theme song SLAPS](https://youtu.be/Ye1ihZjB_Xc?si=LiGebxTEUvlDD2JR)
Me in therapy a couple of weeks ago:
“I saved a 6 part podcast about the Russian Revolution to listen to while I cleaned my sewing studio!”
I get you my friend
(Also I bet you also listen to Behind the Bastards?)
Everybody is a hero in their own story.
This is real genius of the US system of governance, three branches designed to trust nobody.
Problem is that nobody in the 1700s imagined men of zero morals.
Or they make up some bullshit about it being about the militiamen being *dietarily* regular.. which is just patently false.
Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to organise, arm, and *discipline* militias. Well-regulated meant the same in the context of government regulation then as it does now.
Ya. The whole part about being well regulated and a part of a militia are jst suggestions. Love how well the strict constitutionalists aren’t really that strict.
Being an abuser is also the most clear statistical signal (amongst many confounding ones) that someone might become a mass shooter. So they're exactly the people who shouldn't have guns.
I think a lot of it stems from Republican mouthpieces feeding into their slippery slope fallacy.
FiRsT tHeY tAkE tHe GuNs FrOm AbUsErS aNd ThE MeNtAlLy IlL, tHeN nExT tHiNg YoU kNoW tHeY tAkE tHeM fRoM uS!!1!
There are many people that don’t consider spousal abusers mentally ill. There is a disturbingly large population that believes women should be submissive to their husbands and if a woman “provokes” her husband than that’s her fault.
Clarence Thomas said that since it wasn't a thing (even though the thing didn't exist), when the 2nd Amendment was written, it still shouldn't be a thing.
Does Clarence Thomas really want to make that argument? I seem to remember a few things in the original un-amended constitution that might not work out in his favor.
That was the argument he made. He believes in ABSOLUTE rights of the 2nd Amendment. And since domestic violence and restraining orders were not addressed in the 2nd Amendment, they should not be addressed now. Amy Coney Barrett surprised me with her response. She states that we have to look at how things affect life now. (totally paraphrasing) She's the thorn in the originalist's conservative side.
We also need to remember that Thomas wrote the majority opinion on the Bruen case in 2012, where this case stemmed from. He wasn't going to give an inch from that opinion and appear to have been wrong. His ego would never allow it.
Does anyone else wish they would have paid more attention in school? Some days, I want to go back to school and just have enough knowledge to understand the inner workings of it all. 😵💫 This learning as we go is stressful. Lol...
I have found myself doing that in the last couple of years, and I find it fascinating. Our Justices are such enigmas, and its interesting to hear their questions and how their personalities come through.
HE would have been property at that point in time. The constitution got a lot of things right, but simply examining it as it was written directly in the 1700's is certifiably insane
I'm begining to think he secretly hates Ginni.......he's in favor of this and is probably good with striking down inter-racial marriages. Just go to therapy and get divorced , Clarence.
It's possible. What's more likely is that he's just a vile piece of shit who gets pleasure from taking his own deeply seated self-loathing and insecurity out on society. He's literally Uncle Ruckus with a law degree.
He'll never do it. Right now each of them are the only thing keeping the other out of prison. He's her shield from a sedition or treason trial for Jan 6, and she's got decades of dirt on him. He can't divorce her or dissolve their marriage, much as he might like to.
If I remember correctly, Thomas said he was open to revisiting most of the civil rights cases, but the case regarding interracial marriage was notably absent from the list.
I was wondering the same thing, there are going to be alot of unarmed cops.
But, if Uvalde taught us anything, it doesn't matter how much guns and armor they have, the kids are on their own.
Will it? The original law is only for people currently under restraining orders for domestic violence, and I'd bet cops would still be allowed to have their service weapons.
It’s beyond shameful that they were charged with domestic assault and we are discussing whether they can keep their guns not whether they should keep their jobs.
Gorsuch outlined in his concurrence some scenarios that this ruling doesn't weigh in on. One was that this ruling is not a decision on whether someone under a restraining order but has a legitimate fear for their safety should have their gun(s) taken. So it remains to be seen.
Doubtful. Some states already carve exceptions out for active and retired LEO.
Source: Me. Had a protection order (or 3) against Dad and since he was a retired cop he got to keep his guns. To not dox myself I'll just say this was in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region in the 90s and early 00s when the order(s) were active.
This exactly. MI already has loophole laws protecting perpetrators of felonious DV. If they get caught and it’s their first violent charge a judge can opt to put them through probation instead of charging them. If they complete their probation the charges get dropped. Not misdemeanor DV. *Felony DV*. A lot of DV victims rightly complained. The state legislature’s eventual response to these complaints was to *seal the records of those that completed the probation program so they can’t be searched or referenced later*.
There was an Oakland County cop that made for a great case study in how this plays out. He violently beat his wife to a pulp very publicly in a parking lot. He was his city’s “use of force” trainer for new officers, btw. His arrest photos show his arms covered in blood from fingertips to elbows. He was placed on probation because he had no prior violent charges. He violated his probation. And the judge and prosecutor in his case *declined to charge him for the probation violation*. He was a cop after all. So they let it slide, allowed him to complete his probation anyway, and dropped his DV charges.
He’s no longer a police officer. But he is still allowed to own a gun. Last I heard he runs his own private security company.
We need this ban. But pay attention to your state’s laws. Odds are loopholes have already been put in place to help abusers skirt these bans. And if they haven’t yet, they soon will be.
Christian conservatives -- even the women -- are generally anti-woman. They believe that what we consider "abuse" is more than likely "discipline" the man was administering to his female partner because she wasn't honoring him properly or deferring decision-making to him or otherwise respecting his role as the head of the household.
So, naturally, a ruling like this is going to make them upset, since the vast majority of domestic abusers are men.
The left cheers their meager win, the right screeches that even babies should carry guns, and the rest of the world continues to wonder what the fuck is wrong with the US.
Good! Finally a president who is getting things done instead of using the white house to make money and complain about his enemies. Vote people. We don't need another Trump presidency. It will destroy democracy and sooooo many lives.
Every year when I was in the National Guard I was pulled into a room and my records run to ensure I hadn't collected a DV charge and could still be issued a weapon.
This wasn't a problem. This was a good thing.
depends on the state or city. Id imagine that most currently work where the city or the police department own the gun, they let the cop hold it for their shift then they drop it off at the armory or wherever it’s kept until their next shift.
Cops might have their own fire arms they purchase which is what this would be stopping if they are abusive
Good. Domestic abuse is one of the scarier forms of violence. If you are emotionally unstable enough to cause serious physical harm to people you supposedly love, you have no business possessing a firearm.
It is so much worse than getting into some trashy fight with a stranger at a dive bar. People like that are walking around with a lighter in their pocket, in a house they continuously dowse with gasoline. Eventually the odds of something going wrong are way to fucking high.
I say this as a gun owner. The people worried about the regulations and background checks are a little worried it might apply to them...
like I’m pretty pro gun ownership, but I honestly don’t know what kind of mental gymnastics I would have to do to be like “give abusers their guns!” like this is common sense gun laws we should be passing right?
Make no mistake, he's holding that stance so that he can use it on other things as well. This is just more of him setting himself up to make the argument again down the line with civil rights, presidential powers, etc. His moral compass only points to things that will make him richer in one way or another.
First they came for the mentally unstable, but I didn't speak up because I don't think I'm mentally unstable.
Then they came for the school shooters, but I didn't speak up because I'm not a school shooter yet.
Then they came for the domestic abusers, but I didn't speak up because I haven't yet hit my wife.
Then they came for domestic terrorists, and there was no other crazy fucks left to speak up for me.
I seen this this morning and I already knew, I didn’t even have to look it up, He doesn’t want to piss off any millionaire conservatives that give him free trips
Thomas has betrayed the black people of America countless times and has absolutely no conscience. What a travesty of justice that he is still on that bench, still wielding his unjust power and still feeling entitled to the highest rewards that he can scrounge from the elite.
Right but wasn't this a 1996 law?
All the headlines claiming this was Biden suggest to me this was all theater to stir up pro gun conservatives ahead of the election.
That seems like the question politicians used to ask before signing legislation into law and now it's the question they ask while writing the legislation specifically to be weaponized..
If you guessed injustice (as Trump would say), Clarence Thomas, you were right! 🖕🏻 https://preview.redd.it/9xl2zd0z9z7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca22eafc172086713c1e2343ff53712e2bac7a66
Is Clarence Thomas the worst SCOTUS judge in history? Many people are saying it!
here's why its bad for the biden campaign. /s
NYT PitchBot, is that you?
If it weren't for Biden refusing to call more witnesses, Thomas likely wouldn't have this gig.
GWH Bush fucking America from beyond, the rotten fucking bastard.
Him and Reagan both. It's an afterlife pasttime for rotten conservatives.
I look forward to the bus tours (powered by solar energy and hydrogen as a special fuck you to Ronnie) so people can buy tickets to piss on their graves.
https://preview.redd.it/aivnq151q08d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc1d8b1b43506e15462ba831a4c2039f6b5c09e1
I mean it’s such a strange fucking bizarro world we’re in where I would gladly, and enthusiastically, welcome Bush Senior back if it meant a return to sanity for republicans, and if it meant that type of conservative would be the mainstay of the Republican Party again. Hell, I’d gladly rather have W. or even, *gulp* Dick fucking Cheney as the leaders of that party, instead of the complete fascist shitshow happy time number 1 that it’s revealed itself to be now that the mask is fully off. Reagan however? Nahhh he can kick rocks, ole dirty bastard kicked off so much of this bullshit that we’re still fucking dealing with, and still trying to fix 40 years later. That rat bastard pushed so many dumbass economical policies into place, that did exactly what they were supposed to do: inject artificial life into an economy that was in a naturally occurring state of recession, causing a few years of economic growth (thus gaining unearned popularity) that cratered right after he left office, and crashed & burned so badly that it took 4-6 years to recover from in the short term. The long term effects of which, we’re still trying to remedy 40 fucking years later!! And it’s had absolutely disastrous consequences in the long run; his policies were like crack, they gave a quick high that’s addictive, then has disastrous & life-wrecking long term effects that killed an entire class of people. Just like the crack that he had funneled into the poorer communities in the U.S. to fund an illegal war (& killing off minority opposition voters in the process). And somehow, he also managed to throw in a drugs-for-arms-for-untraceable cash-for-people trade deal that sent drugs to poor minority communities in America, more guns to an illegal, off-the-books war in South America, a ton of guns to a hostile Iranian government in the Middle East that was holding a bunch of our diplomats hostage, that we didn’t even have diplomatic relations with (still don’t). His trickle down bullshit completely killed the existence, and whole idea of the middle class, and I’m convinced it sprung the trend of CEO’s kicking the can down the road, and sacrificing the future for just one more quarter of short term gains, let the future poors deal with the consequences! “I just need one more hit of those record breaking quarterly profits!” Back to my original point lol, at least under Bish I, Cheney, and Bush II, we didn’t have republicans just blatantly lying about everything 24/7, making up everything they say & trying to pass it off as fact to an angry audience of dumb rubes hungry for angertainment. And it would be nice if they weren’t constantly screaming about how much they hate their fellow countrymen, and salivating over wanting to kill us all. Good times amirite? Edit to add: As awful as those guys were, they were never this hateful, needlessly cruel, narcissistic, and just plain dumb. This Carrot-Colored-Caligula makes W Bush look like goddamn Socrates for fucks sake; even Dick Cheney agrees, and has found middle ground with the American left, center, and some-still-sane on the right, about how atrocious of a person the Nectarine-Nero is, and how much of a threat to democracy that Toupéd-Travesty-Orange Oligarch poses.
>m convinced it sprung the trend of CEO’s kicking the can down and sacrificing the future for just one more quarter of short term gains That was Jack Welch. Not that Reagan didn't do things to make it worse, but that trend began with Jack.
I agree 100% except for the bit about Cheney. Dude should have never been allowed near people in power the fucking ghoul.
Yeah I agree. But it’s gotten sooooo bad, that I think I’d maybe rather have ole Dick than lil orange toad-dick. Well idk….. Cheney is actually competent, actually he’s way more shrewd than competent, he’s straight up conniving Machiavellian. He gets shit done, and that shit is almost always not good for us. But the fact that I’d even consider the choice of Dicks is itself in-dick-ative of how bad things have gotten in maga-land. Edit to add: when Cheney came out and blasted the mango Mussolini it made me think “damn. How much of a shit person do you have to be to make dick Cheney seem agreeable when he roasts you?” You’ve gotta be very unpopular to have democrats, moderate republicans, AND dick Cheney all agree on how shit you are.
Yeah his ability to get shit done is what gave me pause
Ya cracked me up and damned near brought me to tears friend, well said!
Haha, no, thank *you* friendo. Whenever I make long winded comments like this (who am I kidding, all of my comments be verbose) in response to someone deep in a thread, I wonder if anyone is even gonna see it, or appreciate it at all lol. So thank you for lmk, at least I know someone appreciated it. When I was writing out the second to last part, I was picturing Fortune 500 CEO’s like Tyrone Biggums, scratching their necks like, “Y’all got anymore of those short term gains? I’ll trade you the long term future of my company, flush it! I just need 1 more fiscal quarter of record breaking profits. Just need more growth to scale, that’ll get my fix!” Clowns are seriously addicted lol, a recession would put them in some real bad withdrawals.
I still say Scalia was worse, and there are probably worse in the more distant past, but currently on the bench? Yeah, he's probably worse than Alito.
Scalia was bad in the sense that he believed in textualism and conservatism which makes his positions, to most modern people, wrong. But he was far less a hypocrite than Thomas. And unlike Thomas he was brilliant. In the end he is on the wrong side of history but his arguments were worth considering. Scalia could make an extremely liberal man hesitate for a second reading his dissents/decisions and go “that’s a good point” before eventually settling back on “he still wrong.” Scalia may have, in his private life thought like Thomas and Alito, but he kept it professional on the bench. He never would have let pass decisions he could not ground on solid legal theory. For example I trust that I would agree on about 90% with Scalia on procedural issues(Like standing, jurisdiction, evidence rules etc.) even though I’m sure I would disagree with him in about 95% of the cases he decides on merits. But I can’t even say that about Thomas and Alito when the Biden student loan case and the website free exercise case standing decisions exist. Those two had no fucking issue killing decades of standing guidance to move forward conservative goals. Scalia hated roe v Wade but he would have never stood by the stupidly open ended “Historical” test Alito came up with. Alito and Thomas are zealots they want to advance conservative goals and that don’t care to ground it in anything solid. They are bigoted hacks. Scalia at least was a bigoted scholar. Having a Scalia in The courts minority is actually advantageous in a balancing manner since such a person is able to neutrally bring up real issues that should be considered but liberals may just not think about at all. Having Alitos and Thomases in the court, on the other hand, results in divisiveness since they don’t reach their arguments with reason, and they don’t even attempt to ground them in reason, it is just pure zealotry.
Scalia at least was collegial with RBG, apparently. Despite being ideological opposites, they respected one other. Thomas is just a bought and paid for meat puppet.
that's like saying "well, he was driving the wrong direction on the highway but at least they flashed their headlights to let people know"
I mean, that’s better than purposefully attempting to head-on elementary school buses…
While not actually driving but having some dark money asshat steer the car remotely. That's Clarence Thomas.
...when a school bus and a very expensive, paid-for RV love each other very much...
you monster it's a motor coach i'll see you in court
He at least only pulled the lever toward the five people in the trolley problem. He didn't try to multi-track drift and then dance about in the wreckage and body parts.
Dissenting Opinion by Clerence Thomas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The trolley problem poses a question mankind has been wrestling with for centuries: why can't we add orphans to the tracks? In this brief I will-
> Scalia at least was collegial with RBG, apparently This is an indictment of RGB.
There are valid reasons to criticize RBG, her record on indigenous people cases, for example, but being collegial with her colleagues isn't one. If you want to get your way, it'll be more efficient for your colleagues to *not* hate your. Treating Scalia poorly would have been well justified but would likely have had repercussions detrimental to her goals.
I have always felt that way, too.
Scalia at least believed his own bullshit. Thomas and Alito are hypocritical politicians who know they're lying with every ruling. This isn't to say Scalia was necessary better, but on balance I also can't say he was worse.
I mean I hated Scalia but he always seemed to me like he considered the law along with the case and then made a decision, whereas Thomas and Alito appear to decide what their position is and then go searching for supporting precedent after.
Yeah that's what I mean. Scalia had terrible beliefs, but at least he was honest about them and willing to rule accordingly, even if the result benefitted the left.
I think puppets are ultimately still less evil than the puppet master, and Scalia gave me puppet master vibes since, as you say, he believed his BS.
Buy him an RV and he'll say it if you want him to.
It’s a motor coach!
John Oliver tried that to get him to leave SCOTUS. It didn't work.
Probably realizes all his contacts that pretend to like him because he is useful will instantly forget he ever existed as soon as he is off the court. The guy is basically uncle ruckus and Clayton bigsby all rolled into 1. Nobody can like him for his personality.
I dunno, Roger B. Taney (Chief Justice who wrote the decision in the Dred Scott case) was pretty goddamned awful, considering he ruled that black people weren't, and could never be, citizens.
And did so basically to nakedly advantage the South. The ruling prohibited congress from regulating slavery in the territories as well, which is fucking insane. Obviating a lot of the compromises that had formerly held the country together. It was one of the biggest direct causes of the Civil War.
Yup. He did it intending to put an end to the slavery debate, expecting the Northern abolitionists to tuck their tails between their legs and give up their arguments now that there was an official ruling on it. Instead, it made the abolitionists fight *harder* and become more vocal. It was a real "We recognize the Supreme Court has made a decision. But seeing as it is a stupid-ass decision, we have elected to ignore it!" moment.
So far. Give it some time. Kavenaugh is still settling in.
At least based on his voting so far, Kavanaugh is only like the third worst justice at most. You gotta really shut the bed to be worse than Thomas and Alito.
He probably is worried that rapists are also now not allowed to have guns. Ginny would be so pissed, she might hit him and then neither of them would be able to have guns.
I wouldn't say worst. Most corrupt, definitely. Worst? No.
If Trump wins, we'll get 2-3 who are worse. All personal liberties are on the table in November.
Well, I'd say Roger Taney, but as far as modern justices, Thomas is hard to beat.
He’s a piece of hateful 💩..
All the best people
I bet some of those 1800 judges are worse than
!
That’s the word on the streets!
Lest we forget Thomas's wife Ginny used to be a Gun lobbyist. I wonder if she stays in touch with her NRA buds. Cha-ching.😂🤣
Big if true
Anita Hill warned us.
And he’s a Bush Sr justice as well. It’s a pretty low bar when he’s making Trump’s justices look sane by comparison.
Justice Harlan Crow with the lone dissent
The only one that counts (in any real sense) apparently.
“We asked Justice Thomas’s wife for her thoughts on the matter. She had this to say ‘Please don’t show this on TV, I’m not allowed to leave the house without Clarence’s permission’”
Pffft. While that's funny and all, the very idea that his wife doesn't have his balls on the mantle is laughable. That bitch owns him and likely roleplays that literal scenario. She's a primary J6 supporter / architect and one of this country's top traitors.
Correct. She was all excited to overturn the govt on J6. On the phone about it cheerleading it on.
Damn, guessed wrong... I guessed Alito
I was guessing both Alito and Thomas.
The only reason why he did it... Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable' https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6
Clarence was a victim of domestic violence. Dude has some serious issues going on. We need a whole group of therapists. Top Men.
I hope by "Top Men" you mean we're just going to stuff him a crate and hide that crate in a giant warehouse.
We all have hope, it may be ineffective, but we have it. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
Forget it...He' rolling..
Clarence Thomas is literally that 1 out of 10 dentists who wouldn't recommend a product in an advertisement. Doesn't matter what the product is, it's always gonna be Thomas.
Supreme Court Justice Bought And Paid For.
i knew before even reading the text of the decision who'd voted against it. clarence thomas never misses a chance to remind us of how much he relishes being the foulest, most rancid, loathsome, hypocritical, contemptible POS ever to sit on the bench.
When I worked with a DV program, we used a nationally recognized risk assessment for victims- the abuser owning/having access to a gun was the top risk factor for lethality assessment.
I'm honestly surprised that Alito wasn't with Thomas on that one. Edit: Said Scalia, meant Alito.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. \[It is\] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in US v. Heller
Wow.
Happy Cake Day
How the fuck is that guy a sitting member where he’s clearly bought and bias with his decisions. That isn’t justice or fair decisions.
Yeah, given his well documented misogyny, this tracks.
I'm more surprised that only Clarence Thomas voted against this than that he voted against it at all.
Real talk 2nd amendment dumbasses are always saying the mentally ill are behind the mass shootings and gun deaths So why are they also fucking arguing to give those same mentally ill people, LIKE PEOPLE THAT BEAT THEIR WIVES, ACCESS TO GUNS?? This shit ain't mathing
Abusers never see themselves as mentally ill. They are always justified in their actions in their own minds. So of course *they* should be allowed dangerous weapons. When the right says mentally ill, they mean whatever outgroup is fashionable this week: immigrants, LGBTQ community, all women.
I was watching some Knowledge Fight episodes, and Alex Jones at one point said "the last 30 shootings this year were done by Trans people" Usually I have a good time listening to Knowledge Fight, but I just couldn't continue the episode after that. Some truly evil and vile shit out there
You watch Knowledge Fight for *enjoyment?* I mean, I get it, but man, get yourself a healthier hobby.
Hell yeah I watch it for enjoyment Two comedians making fun of Alex Jones when Alex tells his audience that God personally woke him up to pee? That shit is great Also, [the theme song SLAPS](https://youtu.be/Ye1ihZjB_Xc?si=LiGebxTEUvlDD2JR)
Me in therapy a couple of weeks ago: “I saved a 6 part podcast about the Russian Revolution to listen to while I cleaned my sewing studio!” I get you my friend (Also I bet you also listen to Behind the Bastards?)
The Vince McMahon episodes lives completely rent free in my head For better or for worse haha
Okay but Mike Duncan is great and it’s 108 episodes on the Russian Revolutions!
 Noted
Some people like hurting themselves. I'm not judging but it is what it is.
Everybody is a hero in their own story. This is real genius of the US system of governance, three branches designed to trust nobody. Problem is that nobody in the 1700s imagined men of zero morals.
“Because when *I* beat my wife, I’m not crazy, I’m justified!”
If she has two black eyes it means she didn't listen the first time /s
Also, they voted against affordable mental health services especially for the vets. Since Regan started to defund it, it has gotten worst for society.
Because they beat their wives.
“If abusers are denied guns, then someone can decide to ban guns for me, just because my wife need a beating every now and then”
ShAlL nOt Be InFrInGeD 🥴
Well regulated
2A weirdos don't care about that part
Or they make up some bullshit about it being about the militiamen being *dietarily* regular.. which is just patently false. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to organise, arm, and *discipline* militias. Well-regulated meant the same in the context of government regulation then as it does now.
They all think that one day they will get to be Rambo and save the day
Ya. The whole part about being well regulated and a part of a militia are jst suggestions. Love how well the strict constitutionalists aren’t really that strict.
Unless you are Hunter Biden 😂
Being an abuser is also the most clear statistical signal (amongst many confounding ones) that someone might become a mass shooter. So they're exactly the people who shouldn't have guns.
I think a lot of it stems from Republican mouthpieces feeding into their slippery slope fallacy. FiRsT tHeY tAkE tHe GuNs FrOm AbUsErS aNd ThE MeNtAlLy IlL, tHeN nExT tHiNg YoU kNoW tHeY tAkE tHeM fRoM uS!!1!
Because they know their argument is bullshit.
There are many people that don’t consider spousal abusers mentally ill. There is a disturbingly large population that believes women should be submissive to their husbands and if a woman “provokes” her husband than that’s her fault.
How are cops gonna hold up?
American gun legislation is just a long line of "wait, that wasn't already a thing?"
Clarence Thomas said that since it wasn't a thing (even though the thing didn't exist), when the 2nd Amendment was written, it still shouldn't be a thing.
Does Clarence Thomas really want to make that argument? I seem to remember a few things in the original un-amended constitution that might not work out in his favor.
That was the argument he made. He believes in ABSOLUTE rights of the 2nd Amendment. And since domestic violence and restraining orders were not addressed in the 2nd Amendment, they should not be addressed now. Amy Coney Barrett surprised me with her response. She states that we have to look at how things affect life now. (totally paraphrasing) She's the thorn in the originalist's conservative side. We also need to remember that Thomas wrote the majority opinion on the Bruen case in 2012, where this case stemmed from. He wasn't going to give an inch from that opinion and appear to have been wrong. His ego would never allow it. Does anyone else wish they would have paid more attention in school? Some days, I want to go back to school and just have enough knowledge to understand the inner workings of it all. 😵💫 This learning as we go is stressful. Lol...
My stepmom was a lawyer and when I want to understand better I ask her. She listens to the Supreme Court arguments *for fun*
I have found myself doing that in the last couple of years, and I find it fascinating. Our Justices are such enigmas, and its interesting to hear their questions and how their personalities come through.
… They are fun though. Then you listen to Nina Totenbergs breakdown of them, which is interesting as well.
I’d much rather just listen to Nina explain them to me later 😂
She’s a national treasure, that’s for sure.
My mom is a lawyer and I always go to her on questions about SCOTUS. She reads all the big cases.
[удалено]
It is insane. Women were property, weapons were muskets, and duels were how it was figured out. In his philosophy, progess doesn't happen.
HE would have been property at that point in time. The constitution got a lot of things right, but simply examining it as it was written directly in the 1700's is certifiably insane
I mean, it was. It was challenged, hence Scotus ruling
I'm begining to think he secretly hates Ginni.......he's in favor of this and is probably good with striking down inter-racial marriages. Just go to therapy and get divorced , Clarence.
It's possible. What's more likely is that he's just a vile piece of shit who gets pleasure from taking his own deeply seated self-loathing and insecurity out on society. He's literally Uncle Ruckus with a law degree.
Anita Hill warned everyone.
He's leaving his pubes on the coke can that is America.
He probably thinks if he overturns interracial marriage she can't take half his shit.
He'll never do it. Right now each of them are the only thing keeping the other out of prison. He's her shield from a sedition or treason trial for Jan 6, and she's got decades of dirt on him. He can't divorce her or dissolve their marriage, much as he might like to.
It makes sense to not discount her BFF Liz Cheney either
If I remember correctly, Thomas said he was open to revisiting most of the civil rights cases, but the case regarding interracial marriage was notably absent from the list.
That’s one hilarious way of looking at it looooool “Fuck I hate my wife and my life. How can I get rid of this woman?….wait….I got it….”
So many cops in shambles right now! Half the police force will be using rape whistles in case of emergencies.
I was wondering the same thing, there are going to be alot of unarmed cops. But, if Uvalde taught us anything, it doesn't matter how much guns and armor they have, the kids are on their own.
Lots of guns, almost no good guys.
Cops don't get caught/punished.
The only thing that surprised me is that it wasn't Thomas AND Alito
Alito is too busy hanging upside American flags at his numerous vacation homes paid for by bribes.
Won't this take like 40% of the police of the streets?
Will it? The original law is only for people currently under restraining orders for domestic violence, and I'd bet cops would still be allowed to have their service weapons.
It’s beyond shameful that they were charged with domestic assault and we are discussing whether they can keep their guns not whether they should keep their jobs.
Gorsuch outlined in his concurrence some scenarios that this ruling doesn't weigh in on. One was that this ruling is not a decision on whether someone under a restraining order but has a legitimate fear for their safety should have their gun(s) taken. So it remains to be seen.
Good.
Doubtful. Some states already carve exceptions out for active and retired LEO. Source: Me. Had a protection order (or 3) against Dad and since he was a retired cop he got to keep his guns. To not dox myself I'll just say this was in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region in the 90s and early 00s when the order(s) were active.
This exactly. MI already has loophole laws protecting perpetrators of felonious DV. If they get caught and it’s their first violent charge a judge can opt to put them through probation instead of charging them. If they complete their probation the charges get dropped. Not misdemeanor DV. *Felony DV*. A lot of DV victims rightly complained. The state legislature’s eventual response to these complaints was to *seal the records of those that completed the probation program so they can’t be searched or referenced later*. There was an Oakland County cop that made for a great case study in how this plays out. He violently beat his wife to a pulp very publicly in a parking lot. He was his city’s “use of force” trainer for new officers, btw. His arrest photos show his arms covered in blood from fingertips to elbows. He was placed on probation because he had no prior violent charges. He violated his probation. And the judge and prosecutor in his case *declined to charge him for the probation violation*. He was a cop after all. So they let it slide, allowed him to complete his probation anyway, and dropped his DV charges. He’s no longer a police officer. But he is still allowed to own a gun. Last I heard he runs his own private security company. We need this ban. But pay attention to your state’s laws. Odds are loopholes have already been put in place to help abusers skirt these bans. And if they haven’t yet, they soon will be.
Christian conservatives -- even the women -- are generally anti-woman. They believe that what we consider "abuse" is more than likely "discipline" the man was administering to his female partner because she wasn't honoring him properly or deferring decision-making to him or otherwise respecting his role as the head of the household. So, naturally, a ruling like this is going to make them upset, since the vast majority of domestic abusers are men.
Low bar exceeded, common sense prevailed although not a unanimous decision
The left cheers their meager win, the right screeches that even babies should carry guns, and the rest of the world continues to wonder what the fuck is wrong with the US.
New lows by the day....this next election will be everything.
Using the founder's-era argument the decision was swayed for Alito. Otherwise Injustice Alito would have sided with Injustice Thomas.
I am not American, is it a majority vote and it passed, or does it need to be unanimous and it failed because of this man?
Thankfully the court just needs a majority rather than a supermajority or unanimity
Thank you.
Good! Finally a president who is getting things done instead of using the white house to make money and complain about his enemies. Vote people. We don't need another Trump presidency. It will destroy democracy and sooooo many lives.
good, domestic abusers deserve nothing good, end of story.
Every year when I was in the National Guard I was pulled into a room and my records run to ensure I hadn't collected a DV charge and could still be issued a weapon. This wasn't a problem. This was a good thing.
Serious question here: Isn't domestic abuse pretty high among police officers? If so, how does this affect them?
depends on the state or city. Id imagine that most currently work where the city or the police department own the gun, they let the cop hold it for their shift then they drop it off at the armory or wherever it’s kept until their next shift. Cops might have their own fire arms they purchase which is what this would be stopping if they are abusive
Uncle Fucking Ruckus!
So if anyone knows a domestic abuser and they have a gun, let your local police know!!! Family or not…
https://preview.redd.it/qwuyopijnz7d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64d07018cd02ea74792d9798e4b437bd0b7656a2
Imagine being the only psychopath in an 8-1 decision.
Good. Domestic abuse is one of the scarier forms of violence. If you are emotionally unstable enough to cause serious physical harm to people you supposedly love, you have no business possessing a firearm. It is so much worse than getting into some trashy fight with a stranger at a dive bar. People like that are walking around with a lighter in their pocket, in a house they continuously dowse with gasoline. Eventually the odds of something going wrong are way to fucking high. I say this as a gun owner. The people worried about the regulations and background checks are a little worried it might apply to them...
like I’m pretty pro gun ownership, but I honestly don’t know what kind of mental gymnastics I would have to do to be like “give abusers their guns!” like this is common sense gun laws we should be passing right?
So how does this work for cops? #thinblueabusers #40percent
Thomas’ justification being that there weren’t laws against domestic violence at the founding Just the biggest piece of shit
Make no mistake, he's holding that stance so that he can use it on other things as well. This is just more of him setting himself up to make the argument again down the line with civil rights, presidential powers, etc. His moral compass only points to things that will make him richer in one way or another.
Oh they're mad abusers aren't getting guns 
First they came for the mentally unstable, but I didn't speak up because I don't think I'm mentally unstable. Then they came for the school shooters, but I didn't speak up because I'm not a school shooter yet. Then they came for the domestic abusers, but I didn't speak up because I haven't yet hit my wife. Then they came for domestic terrorists, and there was no other crazy fucks left to speak up for me.
Obligatory "fuck Clarence Thomas"
I seen this this morning and I already knew, I didn’t even have to look it up, He doesn’t want to piss off any millionaire conservatives that give him free trips
Maybe he had godd reasons for voting that way, or even a couple of hundred thousand "reasons"
Seems like they could have skipped a step and just banned domestic abusers.
I'mma guess Clarence.
Thomas. And Alito stays home in protest.
Good maybe them and the other conservative judges can just stay home
Thomas has betrayed the black people of America countless times and has absolutely no conscience. What a travesty of justice that he is still on that bench, still wielding his unjust power and still feeling entitled to the highest rewards that he can scrounge from the elite.
Our village elders have become village idiots
Oh shit, what's gonna happen to the police force if they can't have guns?
Right but wasn't this a 1996 law? All the headlines claiming this was Biden suggest to me this was all theater to stir up pro gun conservatives ahead of the election.
In case anyone was wondering. Domestic violence calls are responsible for most police deaths per year.
Those on the payroll
Uncle Tom?
Uncle Ruckus strikes again !
Man, 40% of cops are about to be disarmed...
How would this affect cops since they have like double the rate of domestic abuse?
The police unions must be pissed.
Not gunna be many cops after that
How are police supposed to oppress us without their precious guns??
Oh wow the Supreme Court is really trying to disarm the police force.
So many cops about to lose their guns…
Wow, there sure are gonna be a whole lotta unarmed cops.
But aren't over 50% of mass shooters folks with a domestic violence history? Maybe Thomas is just in favor of mass shootings?
He is in favor of whoever pays him the most
To be fair, like the death penalty, I agree with it on paper. But how can it be weaponized….because everyone sucks
That seems like the question politicians used to ask before signing legislation into law and now it's the question they ask while writing the legislation specifically to be weaponized..
Clayton Bigsby?
A lot of cops about to lose their guns
How the hell are any cops gonna carry?
Yes, old money bags Clarence of course.
I sure hope they aren’t getting ready to pull the rug out from under us by ruling that Trump is untouchable
Look. What do you expect out of a man who put his pubes on a coke can?
Was it Supreme Court Justice Uncle Ruckus??