He's a gambling addict accruing hundreds of thousands in debt which are suddenly and mysteriously paid off. I wouldn't mind learning, by who?
MJ is similar, but not quite as far left as TP or DK. While those might be the mirror of Breitbart, MJ is more the mirror of Drudge. All of those sites have little to no journalistic standards.
Even if Thomas had no scandals or weird stories about him, he would STILL be the worst Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He hates his job and should have never been nominated.
Have you actually read any of his rulings? His opinion in the DC vs Heller is brilliant. Since he advocates originalism and using the constitutional mechanisms to create new laws instead of legislating from the bench with constant reinterpretation he’ll be hated by the left regardless of his actual ability. I also don’t get the living and breathing philosophy in the judicial system. There is no real set law or precedent if everything can be reinterpreted down the line. An example, Roe V Wade ruled the state does have an interest in protecting the child’s life originally set at a random trimester and viability outside of the womb. The trimester standard has since been dropped leaving viability as the standard. With the progress of science viability outside the womb has crept ever forward in the gestation period. New laws and new ruling reinterpreting these standards falls under the “living and breathing” philosophy. This would be that theory in action.
I read quite a few of his opinions many moons ago. I was never struck by his brilliance, but that’s probably not surprising. Historically he hasn’t really been viewed as especially brilliant either. Even liberal people will praise Scalia’s writing ability. I never really read anything like that for Thomas which is why I asked what you thought of him. I’m sure I’m in a little bit of a bubble but it seems like the folks lauding him are only the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world. In case people reading this want to know what Clarence Thomas is about without reading Supreme Court opinions, he officiated Rush Limbaugh’s second? third? wedding. As far as originalism goes, it sure does sound simple and easy. It’s odd though that the people who wrote it and knew what exactly they meant when doing so started fighting about it all nearly right away.
Figured you'd bring up Scalia, he was definitely more regarded, mainly because he was so bombastic but he also was more of a thought leader to the right wing of the court. Thomas is just a no frills low key justice. Still Ive always been impressed by his methodical nature. Also, beyond that its just ad hominem? Elton John played Rush's 4th(?) wedding, much liberal tears shed over that.
When I'm not shedding tears over all the women and minorities Kavanaugh is going to oppress(of course), I think about what a tragedy it is that one of the justices who overruled the travel ban wasn't appointed. Who knew that not only was it settled law that the constitution applied to non-citizens, but also that the first amendment restricted the president from implementing national security policies, and that a travel ban on a small percentage of muslim majority countries could be definitively equivocated to a bigotry bias? I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer, just boorish literalist, but that's a rock solid legal argument if I've ever heard one. Sure, the clause outlining presidential authority in plain language seemed clear, but why should justices let anything like the law get in the way of their opinion? Turns out the ban got upheld by the supreme court. Darn. Are they? They're not even claiming to have evidence he knew the documents were stolen, so how are they claiming to have evidence he lied? Mother Jones is careful in their language with these two. Notice how words like "initial discussions" keep popping up. That said, he may well have lied about it, but this pertains to him answering questions publicly about highly classified information. I can see why this would bother someone as I'm very much against the patriotic act myself, but this doesn't convince me he isn't qualified to sit the bench. Does anyone care about how thoroughly Obama lied regarding all of this? Or about how specific he was during his campaign in doing the exact opposite of what he did in office? This is the only one I read their 'proof' on, and it didn't prove shit. Did you read through their links? The document they linked is 58 pages long, and Pryor's name comes up a total of 4 times. He's BCCed on one e-mail discussing Pryor. There's another e-mail about an interview call on an e-mail chain that involves about a dozen people. Then there's another e-mail sent directly to him asking how the call went. Assuming he attended the call, this would at best prove he was marginally involved in a phone screening attended by a large portion of the staff. Everything else I read was totally irrelevant, but I only had the patience to slog through so much of this crap during the election. By the way, even Vox wasn't willing to call that perjury, and believe me, they want a reason to do it. Given their evidence in the previous one, and that they're already using disclaimers like "may have" I felt quite comfortable skipping the rest of their proof. Why are they only linking to these huge e-mail chains anyway? Why not just post the proof? For the most part, things shouldn't be withheld from the public, but the reason justices are nominated rather than publicly voted in for higher courts is because competently appointing them requires an esoteric understanding how the law and legal systems works. I certainly don't believe the previous sentence applies to Trump, but nominating deserving justices is one of the few things he hasn't fucked up. In saner times Kavanaugh would be overwhelmingly confirmed. Also in saner times, Gorsuch would be sitting on the bench. Appointed justices is one of the things I really start to swing right on because I can't tell you how many times I've heard liberals complain that judges are interpreting the law 'literally' and how they shouldn't be doing so. I want them to interpret it literally. That's the entire point of their function. We have an entirely separate branch of government to change the law if you don't like it, and when done so it has to be approved by a far greater number of people than a few justices. I'm tempted to not blame the democrats too much for the stall tactics and smear campaign, especially after Gorsuch, but both sides have been so unprofessional with recent nominations it's getting really pathetic.
Without getting into the travel ban specifically, the fact that the constitution applies to non-citizens is absolutely rock solid settled law and has never been in question. The Constitution is best read not as granting rights to individuals, but as restricting powers from the government (and referencing individual rights as justification). If the government cannot establish a religion, it doesn't matter who they are not-establishing that religion on, because they can't do it at all.
I for one think he'd be fabulous in the role. Him and Kegan can play a Weekend At Bernie's game with RGB3's corpse.
I suppose that's mostly true. Yes, there's been numerous occasions that our legal system flagrantly ruled in opposition to the concept, but as far as legal precedent is concerned at least the bill of rights should extend to non-citizens. What makes me question the settled law issue is how can you pretend the actions 'legally' undertaken from documents like the Patriot Act don't violate the 4th amendment, but in practice it's supposed to apply? That said, for examples of foreign rights being waived, you can usually find a similar example that applies to citizens. Really though, it's mainly that I can't see how anyone could have read the clause justifying the ban and claim it's unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the ban itself.
This is really bitter and petty of me, but I really want FEMA to insist that you recite one "climate change fun fact" before you are eligible to receive any emergency supplies.
It is kind of ironic Trump is being investigated for crimes, some of which, were committed while he was a registered Democrat in the bluest state in the country.
The fundamental flaw of thinking Trump has ever had any ideology beyond self-aggrandizement aside, how is this ironic?