Posted on 08/29/2011 1:56:16 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Lord of the Rings aficionados know that the evil lord Sauron paid little attention to the danger posed by two hobbits slowly struggling across the mountains and deserts of Mordor until he suddenly realized that the ring on which all his power depended was about to be hurled into the pits of Mount Doom. All at once the enemy plan became clear; what looked like stupidity was revealed as genius, and Sauron understood everything just when it was too late to act.
Jeffrey Toobin’s gripping, must-read profile of Clarence and Virginia Thomas in the New Yorker gives readers new insight into what Sauron must have felt: Toobin argues that the only Black man in public life that liberals could safely mock and despise may be on the point of bringing the Blue Empire down.
In fact, Toobin suggests, Clarence Thomas may be the Frodo Baggins of the right; his lonely and obscure struggle has led him to the point from which he may be able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state.
Writes Toobin:
In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.the-american-interest.com ...
What's even sadder is the defenders of such policy on supposedly liberty-friendly venues as FR.
They argue that it’s for the children, GunRunner, which is the same logic liberals use to impose gun bans. Drug warriors regularly use their war to chip away at the Second Amendment. Even the NRA gets in on the game, arguing for more federal gun prosecutions. What happened to the NRA of the mid 90s, where LaPierre referred to federal agents as the jack booted thugs that they obviously were? Now the NRA collaborates with the BATFags to write new regulations that won’t be “too” threatening to gun owners.
Scalia is wrong, Thomas is right. Period!
Thanks for the link & reminder to read what the left is thinking!
No fallacy. You flat out said Justice Thomas got the original Commerce Clause right, then proceeded to support a federal policy that depends on the New Deal Commerce Clause. You also walked right over the Tenth Amendment in the process.
And citing the Preamble as justification for a power of Congress is nothing short of contempt for the original Constitution.
Interesting question. I don’t think we would object to the federal government intruding into intrastate affairs where it concerns protection of our constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms.
We’ve already seen cases where municipalities have gone too far in the restriction of fire arm possession.
On the other hand, we have seen the abuse of federal authority in commerce and education.
The drug issue is especially thorny. What if a state or municipality decides to legalize the sale or possession of drugs? Where do you draw the line between state and federal authority in such matters?
The abuse of eminent domain in some states has resulted in property being confiscated so that shopping malls could be built, with the justification that the community would benefit. I believe the Supreme Court actually upheld such activity. There is obviously a great balancing act required between federal power and states rights. The Court doesn’t always get it right.
We could use four more Thomases.
The 14th Amendment says the states can't violate those rights. It has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.
The drug issue is especially thorny. What if a state or municipality decides to legalize the sale or possession of drugs? Where do you draw the line between state and federal authority in such matters?
I have no idea why you should find drugs a 'thorny' issue with respect to the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment.
What is so hard about honoring the original Constitution in the matter?
What a great man Clarence Thomas is!!! PTL for him being on the USSC!!!
Your right to never be offended trumps everything else :). It's not just a right, it's an entitlement.
Clarence Thomas scares the crap out of those on the left. They would like to destroy him, or at least force him to recuse himself from any 10th Amendment (think Commerce Clause) related deliberations/decisions of the Supreme Court.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
If you want on or off the ping list just say the word.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
| CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES |
You can tell which one is telling the truth because he uses the more direct, logical sentence structure. If you have to use convoluted construction to justify something, it’s probably not worth justifying.
bookmark
Re: Your resolution
The term is biological conception, not inception.
Check a medical dictionary and the internet, if you please.
A+ read. A thousand thanks for posting it.
Agreed. Thomas is making sense, Scalia is ... drunk?
People do generally have the right to defend their property, but there are restrictions. How exactly those restrictions are drawn is, within very broad bounds, a matter of state legislative authority. Some actions which in one state would constitute Murder in the First Degree would, in another state, be regarded as justifiable (if not praiseworthy) homicide. The primary duty of mankind is to care for their offspring and be responsible...do unto others as you would have them do unto you....that is the basis of Western Philosophy for thousands of years.
True, but to die without offspring may be regarded as its own punishment.
My argument is not whether abortion should be legal or illegal, but rather whether it is legitimately a matter of federal government authority. I would suggest that it is not. I would expect that many states would, if allowed to do so, impose more rules restricting abortion; some states would pass the least restrictive rules they could get away with. While I might not be happy with a state that decided not to impose any meaningful restrictions on abortion, I would not regard that as being in most cases a matter of federal jurisdiction.
Much as I love Scalia, he sometimes shows a disturbing tendency to statist authoritarianism. Sometimes his opinions boil down to "But what will the police say?". I don't care whether they like a ruling or not; the Constitution says whatever the Constitution says, which is the same thing it said the day before they were sworn in as officers. If they've been getting away for decades or centuries with some practice that on reflection is repugnant to the Constitution, that doesn't argue in favor of letting them continue, it means they should somehow be punished or dis-empowered in some way to compensate for the excess power they've BEEN exercising and take away the incentive to do similar things in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.