Clarence Thomas, unintentionally, is through extremism acting as Vladimir Putin's stooge to rip the United States apart. SCOTUS risking USA survival
We can no longer play Ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. Clarence Thomas , Supreme Court justice, is emerging as the most dangerous man in America, and the USA needs to take action. FAST
Essentially, the agenda being run by Clarence Thomas is leading to one beneficiary for the disunion of the USA,. That is VLADIMIR PUTIN. The gun ruling, opening up the wound of Roe and Wade, and the hyper extremism of this Justice, Clarence Thomas threatens the destruction of the USA. With the sole beneficiary, Vladimir PUTIN
See this
quote
“The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’s concurrence — which makes clear he is not with the program,” the dissent said.
“In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case,” the liberals continued.
“But he lets us know what he wants to do when they are. ’[I]n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.
“And when we reconsider them? Then ‘we have a duty’ to “overrul[e] these demonstrably erroneous decisions.′ ”
end of quote
This is PUTIN's AGENDA. The other being the ruination of the US Constitution through both sides shredding the document with nonsensical statements as to what the Constitution says and proclaims
Meanwhile America, wake up to realizing the most dangerous man in America today. That is Clarence Thomas, and we no longer have a lot of time left, due to HIM. It is a five alarm fire already.
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-plummets-to-all-time-low-poll-shows-americans-have-no-confidence-in-conservatives/
quote
June 24, 2022
Chief Justice John Roberts (Photo via Brendan Smialowski for AFP)
Public confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low as the court continues to come under fire over what critics argue has been a pattern of legislating from the bench.
According to?Gallup, just 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the judiciary, a marked 11% decrease from a year ago. The poll, conducted between June 1-20, is part of a larger trend of government institutions suffering from a credibility crisis, as Gallup noted. Still, "the 11-point drop in confidence in the Supreme Court," it noted, "is roughly double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline."
Amongst Democrats, confidence in the court is currently sitting at 13% as compared to 39% for Republicans. According to Gallup, the former's confidence in the court is lower than it ever has been in Gallup's history.
Gallup's poll comes on the heels of numerous controversial Supreme Court rulings involving abortion, police misconduct, gun control and the separation between church and state.
Back in May, the court rocked the abortion advocates with news, first?broken?by Politico, that it was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling establishing America's constitutional right to abortion. On Tuesday, the conservative-majority court again shocked a broad swath of the American public when it ruled that the state of Maine cannot exclude religious schools from receiving public funding, dealing a decisive blow to the establishment clause, America's constitutional mandate to keep religious bias out of public policy.
More recently, the court ruled that police officers cannot be sued by suspects for failing to tell them their Miranda rights, which were put in place to protect people from self-incrimination. The judiciary also overturned a New York handgun law that required would-be gun owners to establish that they had "proper cause" to get a concealed carry license.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's conservative justices have adamantly argued that their jurisprudence is not affected by their personal politics.
"Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a speech last September, adding that her goal was "to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks."
But even within the court, justices worry that regardless of whether the court is political, the very perception of it being so fundamentally undermines democracy.
Last December, during oral arguments for the aforementioned abortion ruling, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor herself?expressed?doubt that the court could "survive the stench" of overruling Roe. "If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive?" she asked. "How will the court survive?"
end of quote
Also
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-justice-thomas-says-gay-rights-rulings-open-to-be-tossed.html
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered after Roe is overturned
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 24 20221:43 PM EDTUPDATED FRI, JUN 24 20224:46 PM EDT
SHARE
Share Article via Facebook
Share Article via Twitter
Share Article via LinkedIn
Share Article via Email
领英推荐
KEY POINTS
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021.
Erin Schaff | Pool | Reuters
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that?the federal right to abortion has been revoked.
Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.
Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.
But it is an implicit invitation?to conservative lawmakers in individual states to pass legislation?that might run afoul of the Supreme Court’s past decisions, with an eye toward having that court potentially reverse those rulings.
That is the tack conservative lawmakers took in multiple states, where for years they passed restrictive abortion laws in the hopes that a challenge to them would reach the Supreme Court and open the door for federal abortion rights to be overturned as a result.
WATCH NOW
VIDEO04:44
Roe v. Wade decision appears as ‘disastrous’ as we expected, says Rutgers Law School co-dean
That scenario played out?on Friday when?the Supreme Court,?in upholding a Mississippi abortion law that imposed much stricter restrictions on the procedure than those allowed by its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, overturned Roe altogether. Also overturned was another case dating to the1990s that made clear there was a constitutional right to abortion.
Thomas, in the concurring opinion that he wrote siding with other conservative justices in voting to overturn Roe, cited the rationale for tossing out that decision as he called for other old cases unrelated to abortion to be reconsidered.
CNBC Politics
Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:
“The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause,” of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, he wrote.
That clause guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Thomas argued that the right to abortion under that clause “is neither ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ ”
Thomas noted that the three cases he now says should be reconsidered by the court “are not at issue” in Friday’s ruling overturning Roe.
But, he wrote, they all are based on interpretations of the Due Process Clause.
Specifically, he said, they are based on the idea of “substantive due process,” which in a prior case he called “an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.’ ”
WATCH NOW
VIDEO02:19
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, setting up more legal battles and midterm showdown
Thomas said the idea that the constitutional clause that guarantees only “process” for depriving a person of life, liberty or property cannot be used “to define the substance of those rights.”
While Thomas said that he agreed that nothing in the Roe-related ruling Friday “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion ... in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ ... we have a duty to
’correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas added.
In a furious dissent to Friday’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices pointed to Thomas’ concurring opinion as one of several dangers to individuals’ rights that flowed from the decision.
“We cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind,” wrote the liberals, justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor,
“The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’s concurrence — which makes clear he is not with the program,” the dissent said.
“In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case,” the liberals continued.
“But he lets us know what he wants to do when they are. ’[I]n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.
“And when we reconsider them? Then ‘we have a duty’ to “overrul[e] these demonstrably erroneous decisions.′ ”
“So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again,” the dissent said.
end of quote
Andrew Beckwith, PhD
Chemical Engineering Specialist at Firma-Terra
2 年Does the activism (seditious or not) of Clarence Thomas' wife taint his decisions. Could it? Does it matter? Why or why not? To what effect?