Why, I thought a big supporter of States Rights and Limited Government would be pleased with Justice Clarence Thomas over this.
Of course, I'm sure he sees no problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism. That's OK.
Do you have an example of Justice Thomas' approval of forcing States to fund judicial activism? If you do, fine. If not, then you have just set up and knocked down a strawman.
The utter hypocrisy of this man is unbelievable.
Failure to provide an example will have a substantial effect on the validity of your characterization of Justice Thomas.
I am. I just find this statement coming from a member of the judiciary to be laughable.
"Do you have an example of Justice Thomas' approval of forcing States to fund judicial activism?"
The USSC approved it.
"In Kansas City, Missouri a federal court judge not only mandated spending but raised taxes on his own authority. In a truly abominable decision a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this edict that spent over $1.5 billion on the Kansas City public school district."
"The best examples in this regard are St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri, who have received well over $2 billion from the State Treasury to implement the most expensive school desegregation plans in the country. In these two cases, the federal courts have profoundly altered the normal school financing process and have created unrealistic and unsustainable levels of funding (example: their pupil-teacher ratios are among the lowest in the country at about 13 to 1). Given this unprecedented amount of state funding, it is understandable why these two school boards will not voluntarily give up their state revenues. But it is also understandable why the voters and taxpayers in Missouri have repeatedly elected state officials committed to ending the court orders. Fortunately, the State is a defendant in these two cases and can (and has) filed for unitary status."
Who's placing mandates on the states? Unelected and unaccountable members of the judiciary, that's who.
"In 1982, the Supreme Court rules in Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. The Court stated that undocumented children have the same right to a free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents."
"Educating illegal immigrants in public schools costs states at least $7.4 billion annually, according to a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform that argues American children are being hurt by the drain on resources."
Just two off the top of my head.