• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Justice Clarence Thomas is the problem

Johan

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
He's probably the most conservative judge on the Supreme Court (which is quite a feat. when Amy Coney-Barret is on SCOTUS too) and for the past weeks he has seemed absolutely unhinged


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered after Roe is overturned​

  • Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 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that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.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 cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.
[....]
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe...ays-gay-rights-rulings-open-to-be-tossed.html


Clarence Thomas Quotes False Vaccine Conspiracy Theory In Dissent​


Until yesterday, it was hard to imagine how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could have made the Court’s term any worse. Thomas is considered the ideological godfather of an emboldened, far-right majority on the Court that in the past week alone weakened Miranda rights for people detained by cops, removed the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to actually protect the environment and obliterated the national right to an abortion for women.

In that last instance, Thomas didn’t write the majority opinion but he did pen an inflammatory concurrence inviting challenges to the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception, but notably not interracial marriage, something that’s obviously very dear to his heart.

Then Thomas hit us all with a “hold my beer”, squeezing a reference to the debunked conspiracy theory that Covid-19 vaccines are made of cells from aborted fetuses into his dissent in the Court’s decision to decline a challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate for medical workers.

A group of healthcare workers sued to challenge the mandate, arguing they should be allowed to continue working, unvaccinated, in medical settings, during a pandemic, under a religious exception. Lower courts kicked their challenge to the curb but they appealed to the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 majority, including three Conservative justices, agreed that the case wouldn’t be heard.

Thomas, joined by fellow conservatives Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, went in his bag, writing that the Court should have taken the opportunity to sort out whether or not a religious exemption should have been granted. He noted that there was a “broad exception” to the mandate—that exception being that you didn’t need a vaccine if it might endanger your life—but noted that the plaintiffs’ argued there was no such consideration for their religious beliefs.

What, exactly, were those beliefs that should make them exempt from vaccination? “They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

That. Is. Not. A. Thing
, as NBC News explains.
Pfizer and Moderna used fetal cell lines early in their Covid vaccine development to test the efficacy of their formulas, as other vaccines have in the past. The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.
So it is not true that Covid vaccines are manufactured using fetal cell lines, nor do they contain any aborted cells.


The good thing is the Supreme Court’s term ended yesterday and given his history of sitting on the bench for years without saying anything, it’ll probably be awhile before we hear from Clarence Thomas again.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/clarence-thomas-quotes-false-vaccine-164000971.html

I wouldn't be so sure Thomas is gonna get back to sleep and that we won't hear him for a few years. On the contrary, I think he know feels emboldened. I think the overturning of Roe v. Wade was like a heroin shot to him : he's now pumped up, he feels nothing could stop him, he has 0 restrain, he feels a need to move
 

John_8581

FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Next on Justice Thomas' agenda: Let's see if we can get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Let's set back the country back fifty-five years.

It's time for the House to start impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice Thomas.
 
Last edited:

gmase

Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Impeachment would be another waste of time at this point. Thomas is getting the last laugh at this point as he appears to be more politician than justice.
 

John_8581

FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Exactly. The Senate would never vote to impeach Thomas either. They'd be stalemated. Just like they were with President Trump. Another way would be for President Biden to increase the number of jurists on the Court. But would he get enough support to do that?

Who does that anyway? Is it through President Executive order? Or does Congress need to intercede.
 

gmase

Nattering Nabob of Negativism
I believe Congressional action is necessary. That is how FDR approached it when he wanted to expand the court.

The most obvious issue is that once expansion starts, how does it end? The next President of the opposite party would just do the same. Next thing you know, there are 25 justices.

Tomorrow I walk into and fly out of an airport named for Thurgood Marshall. I doubt we will see a Clarence Thomas one in the future.
 

Theopolis Q. Hossenffer

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Supposedly the number of Supreme Court Justices was set at nine because at that time there were nine circuit court districts in the nation. Now there are 13. So there is some rational to going to that number. That said, never gonna happen. Too many of each party are too invested in the status quo to ever allow change. We are on our way back to somewhere between 1929 and 1955 or so. Hold on.
 

Johan

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Another way would be for President Biden to increase the number of jurists on the Court. But would he get enough support to do that?
That question currently irrelevant 'cause wether he'd have it or not, Biden wouldn't do it just as he wouldn't do anything that wouldn't please Republicans.

Biden is playing Flag-Football, Republicans play Bloodbowl (or Rolleball for those not familiar with GW)
 

John_8581

FreeOnes Lifetime Member
That question currently irrelevant 'cause wether he'd have it or not, Biden wouldn't do it just as he wouldn't do anything that wouldn't please Republicans.

Biden is playing Flag-Football, Republicans play Bloodbowl (or Rolleball for those not familiar with GW)

(y) Offtopic. I liked that movie Rollerball (1975) with James Caan, John Beck and John Houseman. Probably will watch it today. I have it on DVD.
 

tvstrip

I changed my middle-name to Freeones
Oliver even offered to pay out of his own pocket if Thomas takes the deal.

But even funnier is that, as he said on the show, offering such a deal is actually legal in the US
 
Top