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 ...
Scalia is not a conservative justice, at least if we’re being intellectually honest. He creates governmental rights out of thin air. If he votes to strike down Roe v. Wade, it will be because of his personal opposition to abortion, not his respect for the Constitution and our rule of law. Justice Thomas may disagree with abortion as well, but if the Constitution spelled out a right to abortion, he would be the first one to uphold it. Similarly, Justice Scalia voted the way he did in Gonzales v. Raich because he is personally opposed to drug use. The guy is just as bad as the leftists on some constitutional issues, although Thomas and Scalia do agree a substantial majority of the time.
I think that they’re both pretty solid on the Second Amendment.
Thomas would strike down every federal law regarding guns if he was given the opportunity. He can't do it because he hasn't seen that question briefed yet. Scalia, on the other hand, would most likely uphold the federal government's right to regulate guns. Justice Thomas basically hinted in his dissent in Raich, however, that if the respondents in Raich (the medical marijuana users) had asked him to rule on whether the entire Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional, he would have voted to strike it down. That issue was not raised in the briefs, however, so he did not address it. Thomas believes that our federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. He has no problem striking down prior court decisions that enlarge the federal government's scope of power. Scalia has too much respect for stare decisis -- and will blindly accept some of the Court's prior decisions even if they are clearly wrong
Crickets.
The FDA is unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Justice Thomas has repeatedly stated that abortion should be a state issue. He would undoubtedly vote to repeal the federal "right" to abortion if presented with another test case. If abortion is murder, which I believe it is, then how should it not be considered a state issue? The constitution gives states he authority to regulate crimes like murder? The federal government has the constitutional authority to prosecute three crimes: piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. A federal law banning abortion would violate the Constitution. It would have to be a constitutional amendment (a Human Life Amendment), and I'd support a constitutional amendment that would force states to outlaw the practice with certain exceptions. You need 38 states, however.
I’m on Google Plus and a friend of a friend of a friend turned out to be a libtard from NPR and The Nation who posted this article about Clarence Thomas. I had her turned around in rhetorical circles until she blocked me (your comment failed to post - please try again later). I forget her name - some C list libtard celebrity. Bwahahaha.
Hey, Ken. I'm more than happy to have this back and forth with you, but, if you're going to start throwing accusations and attack me with logical fallacy, then I'm outt'a here. So, let's keep it friendly and enjoy it.
The author of the article couldn’t help letting his leftist bias show from time to time; however, the article was generally a good canvass of Justice Thomas and the article’s point that history will treat J. Thomas most favorably is probably on point.
Gee, it doesn’t say that on your homepage. lol
That is a nice retort. In reality, there are too many unconstitutional federal alphabet agencies to name. I think 80% of them have been created in the last century. Did we amend the Constitution to allow for these agencies? Please remind me, because I’ve forgotten. No, I don’t think that we did. These responsibilities are delegated to the states, or to local communities and the people residing within such communities.
True, but they were defending the constitutional of a federal statute that bans the use of medical marijuana, even for federal purposes. Don't you actually read the Constitution? The federal right to ban medical marijuana is in there. It's right next to the federal right to abortion.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
We needed a constitutional amendment to end the abominable practice of slavery.
I've read that Clarence Thomas has a sign posted in his office that says "Do not emanate into the penumbra."
I like that.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
Ironically, your position, if carried over from the matter of life to liberty, ie slavery, would posit that even with an amended Constitution outlawing slavery that the states have some supposed legitimate power to allow it anyway.
Because, our existing Constitution, unamended, explicitly forbids the killing of any innocent person, in two amendments...and imperatively requires every state to provide for the equal protection of the laws for every person within their jurisdictions.
Keep in mind that your quote was written by the author of Roe v. Wade. If your interpretation is correct, then why are the Republican candidates talking about overturning Roe instead of simply passing a federal statute establishing personhood?
You said something that is dirty and it greatly offends me. The First Amendment was not intended to protect unpopular speech. :)
pos·ter·i·ty noun 1. succeeding or future generations collectively"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
[po-ster-i-tee]
Because the Republicans don’t even follow their own Reagan personhood, Fourteenth Amendment plank which has been in their platform for the last 27 years.
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.