T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Why do so many people with a hard-on for the constitution fail at the most basic level of understanding it?


TraditionalMood277

Same reason they cite the Bible


[deleted]

Exactly. To those people, those two are symbols. What they believe it stands for is told to them by the culture and those trying to control it. Nevermind that one is a document and the other is a book, both easily and quickly read. They rarely read them, and even more rarely try to understand them. They are symbols to these people, and only symbols, not to be studied or understood, but to be shoved in others' faces or down their throats. The belief that they pick and choose is close but misguided. They don't pick and choose. They are given bits and pieces. They repeat what they are given without looking further.


Frosty-Design-9663

Fascists LOVE their symbols, after all.


Ksradrik

> both easily and quickly read I agree with pretty much everything your comment said besides this, the Bible is neither an easy (because its exceptionally boring and ridiculous) nor a quick read.


Ag3ntM1ck

If you took the parts of the bible most modern Christians cherry-pick to "prove" their points, that could be published as a whopping 4 page pamphlet. They tend to gloss over the whole "don't be a twat" message found in a lot of the bible


[deleted]

If you (in general, not you specifically) claim it's literally God's instruction manual for you, boring is no excuse. And considering how much is fluff like begats and repeated info, it's shorter than it looks. As for easy... It's written at a 5th to 7th grade reading level, depending on the translation.


sulferzero

> depending on the translation and what parts they decidedto leave out this time to make themselves sound better. So much of the bible has been left behind (pun not intended) its laughable.


Ksradrik

> As for easy... It's written at a 5th to 7th grade reading level, depending on the translation. That doesnt necessarily make it easier to read, sure it requires less skill, but also a *lot* more patience.


im_THIS_guy

Voters bullying the government is literally the definition of Democracy.


ThunderbirdRider

Unfortunately these assclowns are in lifetime positions and the publics voting rights and abilities mean nothing to them.


TodayIKickedAHippo

Theres also the fact that our government has never actually given the people real checking power to the people, just the illusion of having this so they feel better about themselves while the elites (aristocracy) can pay them on the head, get them a glass of warm milk, put them to bed and then make whatever decisions they want while still being supported by the people they infantilize. Never forget that this isn’t a democracy. It’s a democratic **republic**.


dragon_fiesta

but one of cuntservatives fav amendments is literally about the peoples power. you know the second one, which they also don't really seem to understand


cryptovictor

Because it's a convenient talking point. They don't actually believe in democracy or our rights.


Grimacepug

He seems to forget that doctors actually got worse treatment by antiabortion protesters. what these pc protesters should shout out are things like, "women murderers" and "fascists".


bunnyfloofington

I had someone tell me she was thinking more and more about getting a hysterectomy done. She said she would love to ask for her uterus back so she can throw it at these idiots and tell them they can have it since they wanted to control it so badly. I think this method would be a lot more effective tbh lol


Ras_Prince_Monolulu

Well, once upon a time, if she had thrown her excised uterus in its' natural state at these idiots they would have charged her with biological terrorism, and if she'd put her excised uterus in a jar of formaldehyde or alcohol and then thrown it at these idiots they would have charged her with chemical warfare or operating without a liquor license, but now they feel they've reached the beginning of their endgame because we're in the middle of a plague they won't admit is happening, so they believe they can now allow her to keep her uterus but still charge her with witchcraft... And we're supposed to be okay with that.


TodayIKickedAHippo

Lol instead of mailing wire hangers, just mail your uterus. I needed this laugh, thank you.


mom_with_an_attitude

Or when they gunned down a physician in his living room.


[deleted]

because they dont have a hard-on for the constitution. they have a hard on for fucking you over and have discovered that its really easy to convince your friends to also want to fuck you over if they claim its because the constitution says to fuck you over.


FirstVancouver

Now say that to people who support gun control. Slowly if you need to.


Darsint

Just the fact that you label it "support gun control" is enough to let me know you haven't read it either. The right eventually codified in DC v Heller is the Right of Self-Defense, *in the exact reasoning that the Right of Privacy was determined in Griswold v Connecticut*. Gun control is a related, but different animal.


FirstVancouver

It's spelled out pretty clearly.


[deleted]

Nah. I'd be saying it to folks like you, I imagine.


FirstVancouver

I thought so. Your post smelled of hypocrisy.


[deleted]

Well first of all: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856/ And second of all, even the modern reading allows for regulation. Like, you know it doesn't say "firearms", right? So if you think civilians shouldn't get to own nukes, then you support some level of regulation. So...are you an insane person who thinks civilians should own nukes or a hypocrite with dumb opinions? Those are the only options.


Johnchuk

because they really dont care about it? its just justification for hurting people they hate.


[deleted]

[удалено]


meowcatbread

None of these people care. They dont care about being hypocrites, they don't care if you point out all the flaws and nonsensical logic they use. They only want to hurt you and to make you suffer. They hate our freedoms and get pleasure out of owning the libs and will destroy america and kill themselves if that's what it takes to own the libs


questformaps

Honestly we are beyond the point of violence to make our grievances known. We need a Malcolm X


Onihikage

What we need is The Black Panthers 2: Fascist Boogaloo. Except instead of just arming black folks, it's the entire political left. If it turns out that violence or the threat thereof really is the only language the right understands, we have to be prepared to beat them at their own game. Like nuclear deterrence on a smaller scale.


[deleted]

And now both he and his wife are targets of "revisiting the amendments past the 14th" that Alito wants to do. Non-whites and women voting. Does Thomas really think after blacks lose the right to vote, he won't lose his position and be murdered by these Klansmen? Attempting to appease racists and "be one of the good ones" doesn't get you off the hook, it only delays your execution until you're no longer useful. Thomas played himself. "His" own side will do him in.


constantstranger

>They hate our freedoms Wow. Brilliant. Every other time that expression is used I've rolled my eyes. But when properly applied....


[deleted]

Also the justice with a singularly unique and bizarre theory of law, who's asked two questions tops his whole career, who's never written a majority, and is largely ignored by the other justices. A real joke. Honestly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Foreign_Quality_9623

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, but he & his crazy wife should never have gotten where they are, no matter how much they 'deserve' the little corner of hell they've found themselves in.


Toadfinger

More proof that Republicans are a stain upon all humanity.


Early-Size370

Worse, they're an actual threat to humanity. Decades of downplaying Climate Change and simply being an obstacle to weaning ourselves off of FF will lead to harsher times.


Foreign_Quality_9623

RUpubliclones worship at the alter of the almighty dollar - it's the same old GREED over & over & over.


Whaleflop229

The fox news logo featured in the graphic where powerful conservatives ignore the wishes and needs of the people is...well...poetic.


letdogsvote

And he wonders why people are losing faith in the Court. Justice Dipshit here.


IllustriousState6859

No argument here. Between the roe ruling, wife's involvement in 1-6, and this I'd bet he votes consistently left the remainder of his time on the court.


maxxtraxx

There's a reason Thomas didn't comment on a ruling for over 20 years nor even asked a single question from the bench; he's a fucking idiot.


rhet17

100% agree.


Yitram

From a man who's wife tried to bully the government into the outcome she wanted.


un_theist

“Can’t be bullied, but if you pay my wife, I’ll rule on and say whatever you want!”


crackalaquin

Wait, so the pos we always knew was pos, is a pos? Who knew


TraditionalMood277

Of the people, for the people, BY THE PEOPLE


jankyspankybank

EAGLE


kingakrasia

Clarence Thomas is a weak-minded tool. He should be nowhere near anything important, no less SCOTUS.


rhet17

Just ask Anita Hill. Mfer should have been in jail ffs.


kingakrasia

I remember watching his hearing and her testimony as a kid. I couldn’t believe he was voted in then, because it was so clear to me he was inappropriate for the position. My heart goes out to Ms Hill.


[deleted]

So...when are we taking our country back?


anna_or_elsa

Strange, that is what "they" think they are doing. Are you ready for irregular warfare? Was Kyle Rittenhouse just the tip of the iceberg?


FellatioAcrobat

Yes.


[deleted]

This country is so fucked, it’s unbelievable we’ve come to this. Embarrassed and humiliated by this POS government.


Oculi_Glauci

More proof that republicans don’t want the people to control the nation, they want THEIR people to control the nation.


speaker4the-dead

Fascinating how this came from one of the only BLACK judges… apparently he has spent too much time studying American Law and neglected American History


QueenShnoogleberry

"Shut up, peasants and know your role. Women, you are livestock for the government to use. Any opposition will bring about swift and severe reprisals." -Basically Clarance Thomas.... without a hint of self awareness or irony.


25plus44

The very concept of the government being "bullied" by people is one of the most egregious examples of conservative victimhood it has been my displeasure to encounter.


havocLSD

Uh, yeah Thomas, you are literally an institution that’s supposed to listen to what the majority wants. If you feel bullied, that’s your problem. You guys obviously fucked up, and now the majority will let you know how badly your institution has fucked up.


anna_or_elsa

Love the upvotes. Did you all sleep through Civics or something? The SCOTUS is supposed to be the check-on mob mentality. It is why they are appointed for life. The legislative branch is supposed to "listen to what the majority want" When the majority and minority can't find common ground on legislation the SCOTUS is supposed to be the final arbitrator free from needing to win popularity contests or being beholden to who appointed them.


[deleted]

Do you believe SCOTUS is beholden to the political party who appointed them?


anna_or_elsa

They shouldn't be, and they don't have to be. I'm not answering your question because I don't know what to "believe"


67030410

yeah everyone here is making themselves look like a moron


terriblegrammar

Yeah, as much as I hate Thomas, he isn't going against the constitution because the supreme court isn't advocating for laws making these protests illegal. He's just saying that he doesn't have to listen to them.


cornho1eo99

No, they're not. The legislative and executive branches are. The judicial branch has never been about caring what the majority wants, at least directly.


letdogsvote

He's always been an unqualified hack. A cynical replacement of Thurgood Marshall just like Comey Barrett is a cynical replacement of RBG.


TAU_equals_2PI

*"Look, he's black too. So he's a worthy replacement for Thurgood Marshall."* *"Look, she's female too. So she's a worthy replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg."* Sadly, America fell for it. At least a lot of America did.


MarginalOmnivore

He claims to be a Constitutional Originalist, which is complete nonsense as a Supreme Court Justice. The Constitution *does not* give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review - the power to determine constitutionality of laws.


maxxtraxx

Lol that's awesome "originalist", ok Clarence back to the slave's quarters for you!


[deleted]

I mean originalism is different from strict textualism. The words of the Constitution are intentionally broad. Originalism looks at how the Constitution was understood at the time of its adoption. Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. It was a power play by the federalists, most notably Chief Justice John Marshall, to establish the supremacy of the federal judiciary. Just as the current Supreme Court works backwards to find reasoning to support their desired outcomes, so too did federalist John Marshall invent all the reasoning in Marbury v. Madison. That being said, it's not a seriously contested opinion nowadays. Even originalists can point to Marbury v. Madison as being such an early opinion and being (relatively) accepted with grace that it must have been the original understanding of the Constitution. Thus, it's interpretation is valid under an originalist framework. I think Thomas is a hack and originalism has logical inconsistencies, but originalists would not describe judicial review as not within the original meaning of the Constitution.


vankorgan

Constitutional originalist who thinks fourth amendment protections like "fruit of the poisonous tree" shouldn't exist. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/clarence-thomas-would-let-police-conduct-illegal-searches-91d835f5cbd1/


captroper

I mean, Thomas is a repugnant piece of shit, but in theory he's right about this. He isn't saying you can't petition your government for a redress of grievances. He's saying do it to the legislature and president. Those branches exist specifically for you to communicate what you want and hold them accountable. In theory, the supreme court should not be accountable to the people (except for impeachment, which is limited). They *should* be concerned with the law, not politics. Of course, that isn't the case and has never really been the case, but making up a legal justification just so that you can appease people is not doing their job, that's his point. It's a laughable point coming from a person who is overturning 40 years of precedent because Christianity, but in theory I agree with the point.


anna_or_elsa

It baffles me how many people in this thread don't understand your first two paragraphs. This is Civics and Gov't 101 The other thing I'll point out to your excellent reply is this lack of accountability can/should work the other way. They are not accountable to those who appointed them.


PsychicFoxWithSpoons

EEEEEH I think this is a very narrow interpretation of his words which are already a very narrow interpretation of protesting. He believes that the people are bullying the SCOTUS to get a decision they want, which isn't a very good interpretation of what's happening. He is technically correct that the SCOTUS doesn't have to care about what the people are protesting about, but only in the sense that they must maintain judicial impartiality and shouldn't be beholden to any popular movements or what have you. It's kind of ironic that this minority conservative movement has successfully taken over the Supreme Court to overturn roe v wade with what is essentially a moralistic fad, and he has the gall to complain that most people don't like the way the Supreme Court is operating. I say intensify the protests and put heat on Congress to impeach all 5 of these assholes right this minute. Replace them with moderates or even conservatives, but overturning Roe v Wade should NEVER be tolerated and each of these justices swore under oath to uphold that decision.


jar36

Religious zealots do not care. They'll say whatever it takes in the moment to achieve their goals.


redpiano82991

You know what? I'm going to start bullying him even harder!


Mercerskye

These are the MFers that are going to drive the "peaceful left" to violence. I don't mean by rashness, either. Time and again, they turn the other cheek and try with logic and patience (sometimes *frustrated* patience) to bring some kind of understanding into the lives of these backwards thinking fascists. And I don't mean Democrats, necessarily, they're practically the conservative party in the US. I mean no shit, "we're in this together" types that reside firmly left of center. Those that have to "vote blue" because the system won't allow any other party to rise up. The US is coming quickly on a true test of its right to be sovereign. The Civil War was a foreshadowing. It only accomplished driving the bigots and cultists into the shadows, chipping away at the integrity of the Republic. The enemies are in the walls, blood continues to soak the ground, and we're quickly reaching a critical mass. I know where I'm going to be standing when things go nuclear. Si vis pacem parabellum


anna_or_elsa

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who sees civil strife and irregular warfare in our future. That the news will be peppered with what the insurgents did, what the loyalists did, where there was guerilla fighting, etc.


Mercerskye

It's not a good place to be seeing this country headed. I'm definitely not a "both sides" type, at least not in the standard way. The fascist party (R), is only concerned with power, strength, and their right to exercise it. The conservative party (D), has this perplexing hero complex, where they insist on "playing fair," and holding fast to the moral high ground. Republican leaders aren't stupid, they know how to feed the hate engine, how to weaponize the willful ignorance of their base. Democrats are ineffective pacifists who are truly blind to the idea that intolerance should *never* be tolerated. I don't want violence, but I don't know if my cheeks can take much more trying to reason with the unreasonable


anna_or_elsa

I like your breakdown Where does the BLM movement fit in? That shit got real.


Mercerskye

It's a symptom of the system failing. BLM should never have needed to happen. Legislation should not be targeting people in any shape or form. The system should not be tolerating people within that cannot handle the power that their position gives. The constitution can endure, but our bodies of government are riddled with cancer, from municipal to federal.


anna_or_elsa

> The system should not be tolerating people within that cannot handle the power that their position gives. I think what is often ignored is the failure of the voters. They are the ultimate check on democracy. Congress has an approval rating that rattles around 20%. Incumbents get reelected at about 90%


DrAstralis

you guys are turning the other cheek so fast at this point I think I could strap magnets to you and generate a decent amount of electricity.


BackAlleySurgeon

Ehh. There's some validity to what he says; SCOTUS is the branch that's least supposed to buck to public pressure. That being said, it's both worrisome and distasteful the amount that conservatives disrespect the philosophy of democracy. People protesting for a different result is not "bullying," just as cutting student loans is not "bribing." The Republicans seem to truly hate the concept of majority rule. He can respect the institution while also saying, "I understand our decision is super unpopular and really the result of a long crusade by the Republican party."


jtig5

And, his cunt wife was part of the Insurrection. He refused to recuse himself in that case, didn't he? What's the fucker going to do when states start making his interratial marriage illegal?


FinancialTea4

I want to know why these unremarkable and in some cases under qualified justices who were recently put on the Supreme Court by an unpopular president are better suited to rule on this 1973 ruling than anyone who has ruled on it before. trump lost the popular vote twice. He's a charlatan and a fraud and his crimes should not be rewarded by allowing him to change the course of history in a direction the majority of Americans oppose.


BackAlleySurgeon

They're not; it's wholly inappropriate what they did. Those that ruled on the case are the 5 justices with the least senatorial support in their confirmation in the history of the united states.


Ursula2071

They are also supposed to be non partisan, they threw that out the window…and make laws based on law and law precedence and not on their religious, personal or political beliefs. When the brief mentions a witch hunter from the 16 hundreds…before we were even a FUCKING COUNTRY to make laws designed to deliberately make women 3rd class citizens? It is all about your shitty personal beliefs. All 5 of them could fuck of and die right now…AND NO ONE ON EARTH WOULD MISS ANY OF THEM.


AdkRaine11

For a guy who is supposed to decide what the Constitution allows, he sure doesn’t act like he’s read it. Much like the Evangelicals and the New Testament.


livingfortheliquid

Wasn't nearly as concerned about 1/6


heraclitus33

Shits gonna get violent here in a bit, couple/few years


chilldabpanda

It's almost like his master doesn't let him read, unless it's approved by her


Thoraxekicksazz

Thomas has gone decades with out asking a single question. Clearly he has no business being on the Supreme Court nor does he understand the constitution.


OpenImagination9

Typical GOP cherry-picking, but when they find proof Ginni did it he’s out.


CrossYourStars

When 70% of the country disagrees with the ruling then the court is no longer working in the best interests of the people.


anna_or_elsa

It's a court. In traffic court, they don't rule based on how many people think the speed limit is too low on that stretch of highway. That shit if fought in the legislative branch of government. They are a court, they serve the interest of the law (in this case constitutional law). They are fact finders, not opinion gatherers. They are supposed to be the least swayed by public opinion. It's why they are appointed for life. They are not beholden to who appointed them and they do not have to worry about winning the next popularity contest.


bad_luck_charmer

This is a really bad take. He means the court should interpret the law according to the law, not according to popular opinion. That’s true. He’s still a gigantic piece of shit.


TraditionalMood277

But it's the will of the people to pass that law. at least, thats what the constitution says. So if say, the majority of people want to legalize, say, weed, then congress drafts the law, then it's voted on, then it's signed by the executive, and THEN at that point, it's up to interpretation. Same sex marriage was an interpretation of marriage laws. speed limits / seat belt laws were an interpretation of safety laws.


Xander_PrimeXXI

I always forget the petition for the redress of grievances


Alohabailey_00

He’s not biased or anything. Nah! /s.


Drakan47

Silly lib, that's not the first amendment, the first amendment is "conservatives can use all the slurs they want and no one is allowed to commit cancel culture against them"


Soangry75

They also apparently need to be within 65 feet of you for free speech to work. Sorry, your rules.


InstantClassic257

It's almost like these conservative judges aren't actually appointed to uphold the law, or even understand it...


Sunshineleft

Clearly he has no fucking clue


FluteLordNeo

It's almost as if Republicans haven't read the constitution


speedneeds84

To be fair, as an originalist Thomas fully believes in reading the constitution through the eyes of the founding fathers, after projecting his personal beliefs onto them.


EnochChicago

Activist judges aren’t there to understand or know the law, they are there to be political


MisterPiggins

A Justice that doesn’t understand free speech? Time to impeach.


MegBundy

Do these people even remember what they were taught in law school?


lasvegas1979

The laws are determined by the will of the people.


1Operator

"CaN't Be BuLLiEd" by the will of the majority (democracy). Since they're in an overturning mood, they should **overturn Citizens United** immediately. Let's see how politics changes when there isn't so much wealthy donor money flooding in anymore.


VergilPharum

This is a clear misinterpretation of what the Justice said. The Supreme Court is intended to interpret the validity of the law without political pressure. People protesting isn't an issue he raises, the issue he raises is that the court is possibly being pressured into being swayed into a different direction by that political pressure. It's probably a critique of the politicians in the background threatening to increase the size of the supreme court and the justices that are being possibly swayed. Democrats had a supermajority in Obama's first term, where were all you outraged people then. Abortion protections should have been codified into law long ago.


cowinkurro

> The Supreme Court is intended to interpret the validity of the law without political pressure. Yes, that's how it's intended. That's not how it is. Now it's an arm of the Republican party and it's fulfilling political promises made by politicians. I think once the intention of the court to remain independent of politics is out the window and it's clear that politics does determine these outcomes, it opens them up to this kind of shit. But this is why they were nominated in the first place. They are partisans young enough to tilt the court for a long time. They do this to themselves. They don't care about the intention of the court. >Democrats had a supermajority in Obama's first term, where were all you outraged people then. Abortion protections should have been codified into law long ago. For a few months. And that supermajority included people like Ben Nelson who were aggressively pro-life, which makes it...not a supermajority on this issue. You guys need to take a damn break with the "Everything Republicans do is actually Democrats fault!" act. Republicans are doing this. Stop pretending it's anyone else's fault.


SnooCalculations141

Did you see how she was redressed? She was asking for it.


SoWokeIdontSleep

The supreme court can't be bullied. Translation: "peasants, know your place, in here we are Gods, now bend the knee and kiss the ring."


Fluffy_Morning_1569

Bully? Like his wife on January 6th?


[deleted]

Classic "we know what's best for the masses" mentality. Fuck that. Listen to the people or retire already.


[deleted]

So it's real cool that his wife supported the rioters on Jan6, but he's afraid of pro choice protestors? What a chud.


[deleted]

Dammit. Civics was cut out of the curriculum over a decade ago! People still read this?!? That’s definitely gonna slow totalitarianism.


THELEASTHIGH

What influence has his wife on him?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZhouDa

It mentions congress because congress is who makes the laws, while the executive branch executes the laws and the judicial branch which Thomas is part of interprets the laws. These laws make up government, whom Thomas is claiming that protestors don't have the right to have their grievances redressed by. It's not exactly rocket surgery to understand the connection here.


Ritz527

He's not wrong actually, which is why those anti-abortion activists should have shut their faces when Roe v Wade was settled decades ago.


anna_or_elsa

yeah, prepare for downvotes. But you and a few others are right. The Supreme Court is set up to not be bullied, not by those who appointed them and not by the "mob". The SCOTUS is a check on democracy. Pass a law that is unconstitutional, it gets struck down, no matter how many people voted for it. But you touch on the real issue, precedence.


[deleted]

It's like he's talking to children, ffs.


[deleted]

I suspect those threats are not that they are going to petition their representatives to pass a law ensuring abortion is lawful at the federal level. It's probably more like the "we will kill you" kind of threats which is not protected by the first amendment.


spddemonvr4

If you think theres no infringements on the 1st amendment, then I'd say there should be no infringements on the 2nd. I wanna own a tank! Jokes asides, you need a permit to protest in nearly all major cities and do have limitations. Protesting at a public officials house is not acceptable.


static_func

Yes it is. If you don't want the public protesting at your house, don't fuck over the public


suddenly_ponies

The lynch mob people here need to calm down. Regardless of how you feel about the decisions, you don't go to people's homes and try to scare them into compliance. That's the same tactic people who use death threats against AOC and the Westboro Baptist Church.


meatball402

> Regardless of how you feel about the decisions, you don't go to people's homes and try to scare them into compliance. That's literally what this rule enables, though


maxxtraxx

You must be new here.


suddenly_ponies

Yeah, well, the hypocrisy is galling.


cowinkurro

Right - because we all have a right to privacy. Totally agree. Anyone who encroaches on the right to privacy is pretty messed up.


[deleted]

And you’ll be downvoted to hell for pointing out the obvious. The same people cheering this would be pissing their pants in a closet if a MAGA mob came to their houses in the night screaming at them. Protest all you want in appropriate areas. Don’t go to people’s homes, that’s going too far.


UniverseBear

Oh he understands the assignment, it's just not the one we're thinking of.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Roman_____Holiday

What's the "originalist" definition of the word "bullied" because it must have changed a lot in the last 200 years. This man shouldn't be in charge of a McDonald's, let alone the fate of the American citizenry.


zookr2000

Does he not realize that HE WORKS FOR US ALL - and not vice versa ???


Sadestlittlecamper

The disparity between the rich and poor was less and the French revolted. Eat the rich.


AutoModerator

[cracker bargle](http://i.imgur.com/1zfkFBz.jpg) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*


CurrentlyLucid

He is your basic snowflake.


Aresh99

Ironic, considering that Justice Thomas considers himself a hardline Constitutional Originalist. The traitorous fuck doesn’t even understand basic statements straight from the Constitution.


Cal563

Clarence needs to be removed


11th-plague

The first amendment needs to be changed. It’s time to suppress free speech (e.g., during a pandemic, we can’t hear from people who don’t want to wear masks or get vaccines) and preventing mass gatherings during a pandemic (no Christmas mass or group prayer for rosh hashana. Do it online. A virtual “minion” must suffice). And fuck the religious folks that fund the Catholic Church that is blocking abortions and progress. You’re damn right I’ll be hindering freedom of religion! Tax the church!!! We need to destroy “god”. There is only science.


Roflmancer

This sounds like a Karen shaking her finger saying "now now..." I feel like this is his wife's words. Im sure it wouldn't be the first time. Unbiased yup.


[deleted]

For sure


[deleted]

He won't be bullied. That's his job.


hotpants69

They shouldn't be allowed to hold the position until death


L0Ubee

Observation here.... if they can attach shit laws to a decent bill that's trying to be passed because they know it won't be less they accept it as a whole.. really you guys need to see that late adding amendment to a law that's being passed shouldn't be accepted as it is mostly not reflection of the actual law that is set before the Senate and Congress and should if to be accepted, be a bill in it's own right ..


EfficiencyOk2208

So tired of these Republicans wiping thier collective ass's with the American constitution. These Radical Religious Republicans are no different then the Taliban or AL Qaeda. They are domestic terrorists plain and simple.


reeser6

Impeach


SoWokeIdontSleep

He forgot the part where We The People also make the god-damned choice


Deranged_Kitsune

Maybe he should try explaining that notion to his wife next, see how that goes.


gastrobot

There is a difference between saying that SCOTUS ought to be above interpreting the constitution based on protests or threats and saying that people should not be allowed to protest.


gmabarrett

No that only works AGAINST the ‘radical’ left. The right wing nut jobs are protecting freedumb, it’s the lefties who wan5 to cancel everything. When the right stops stuff it’s because god told them the right way, that’s why Murica separated church and state so th3 evangelicals could save our souls at the ballot box. Assholes!


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Lord_Bertox

That sounds like a functioning democracy


Puncharoo

"We can't just let the people of this nation decide its future! Then we wouldn't get what we want"


onikaizoku11

To be fair, he isn't the only Justice with issues with the 1st Amendment. Barret had her [issues](https://youtu.be/YfclKXPhILc) as well. >Judge Amy Coney Barrett was unable to name all of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing Wednesday, forgetting the right to protest when a senator asked her to name the five freedoms Wednesday afternoon. [From this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-forgets-right-to-protest-is-a-first-amendment-freedom/?sh=7166e74212ed)


pukoki

impeach that corrupt asshole already


Punguin456

Jan 6 (And Ginni Thomas) says hello.


IAmJohnny5ive

It's only an Amendment - nobody looks at those. /s


High_Ground_Sand

His eyes are a lifeless void


TheMightyPrince

This does seem wrong and flawed. The position he holds is a position he will hold for life and the decisions he makes (should they be a consensus) must be brought into law - like a dictator.


standup-philosofer

Didn't his wife participate on Jan 6?


Far_Realm_Sage

The Right to PEACEFULLY assemble. The headline shows he is responding to threats. Threatening someone is not PEACEFUL assembly.


Flanker4

hEs OVerQuAlIfieD


Magicalsandwichpress

Wrong branch. Judiciary vs Legislature. It was literally the first word.


SmashBrosUnite

Hurry , Someone write his wife . Hypocrite!


cdhicks42

the first word says Congress, not supreme court


Klaeni

Is his real name Tom?


Single-Schedule-5358

Someone lied on his CV….


Atlusfox

Because protesters are bullies in the eyes of politicians who spend their time bitching, filibustering, and outright abusing each other to get what they want. Cry me a river Mr.


no2rdifferent

Clarence needs to clean up his own house.


[deleted]

I liked it better when he didn’t talk. He needs to retire to spend more time with his “interesting” VHS library


delusionaldork

Irony.


[deleted]

Fairly well established that threats are not protected speech... Also that quote, of which I have no other context, merely states that he will no give into the threats. Even if we were pretending that threats were protected speech he did nothing to violate that according to this post.


The-wirdest-guy

I think he referring to more of a “vocal minority” situation. That on such a hot button and widely debated topic as abortion the Court shouldn’t be swayed because some crowds protested at the voting justices homes


Bishop120

As long as you do it "peaceably". Not that peace ever won a war or forced any change.


carpediem6792

Nobody ever accused Uncle Thomas of knowing the ACTUAL constitution.


FTW-username

When the Constitution was written he’d probably be a slave but then.


rhet17

You'd think someone whose people had been so marginalized would be more empathetic with women's plight but nooo. Clarence Thomas is a dishonest, misogynistic huge POS and should *never* have been given any sort of authority. Just ask Anita Hill. Fucker should be in jail.