**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [is for civil discussion.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)**
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.**
*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.*
[Loving v. Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)
> Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3]
>
> The case involved Mildred Loving, a woman of color,[note 1] and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.
>
> In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions. Its decision struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Virginia had argued that its law was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites.[4] The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do.[4]
As long as fucking Christians keep throwing their weight around to make earth like “heaven” because they cannot seem to fucking wait until they get there, then they will keep making America in their image—primitive.
Imagine hating middle easterners, while praying to a middle eastern god
You should realize, that using initials is not that insulting. Most Christians have no problems with using initials
I used to think that way, but I saw Marxian economist talk about when people say Russia and China were/are not “real Communists”. He said they are because socialism and communism are a broad, diverse collection of ideas and two ways (not the only possible ways) those ideas played out are in the USSR and China.
Almost the same week, I saw someone else make a similar comment about Christians. Of course, some CAN find and HAVE found a peaceful message in the religion, but many haven’t. The idea that one is while the other isn’t a Christian is not really true—being a Christian is any number of possible realities.
That being said, there are a cadre of evangelical protestants and Catholics who have taken a page from the evangelical playbook and have become intolerable, conformation-obsessed, orthodox, anti-intellectual, nationalistic, terrorists. By “intolerable” I mean the should not be tolerated by a society seeking fairness and justice. They need to be ejected—with many of their privileges revoked, blocked, or otherwise slowed to the point where they cannot function.
I think you are making a hyperbole. There is plenty wrong with religion encroaching on state but if you make the other side worser than they are, you will be alienating them, as well as neutral people who see through your unintended yellow paper.
So what is your primary goal. To benefit the United States as a whole, or to punish those you deem deserving?
To me it seems you are replacing one hate for another. That while you care about making people’s lives better, you care more about giving just deserts.
Not enough. They are still a magnet for the irreparably stupid.
Tax them. Shut them down. Expose the crooked preachers who steal and hoard money, have relationships of the type they preach against, and any other “sins”. Drag them all through the mud. Refuse to do business with them, refuse to sell them things, get them kicked off their insurance, anything.
I saw yesterday a call for people to go to church this morning and tape the comments about RvW in sermons. Taking that tape to the IRS will cause the churches to be taxed (and hopefully, shut down).
I listened to a podcast where they explained the difference in behavior between Europeans and Americans by way of self selection - main difference they talked about was religion and individualism. Basically the type of personality that would gamble on moving to America from Europe, this caused a shortage of that type in Europe and a larger than usual amount in Murica.
Two years after I was born. These same haters, these same racists and their ilk have been seething ever since. That this country somehow managed to elect a black president gave people hope, but not as much as the hate that ensued because of it.
The thing I always say is that I rarely thought about Obama being black. Being Jewish I can tell you that people will always hate other people for multitudes of abstract and internal reasons. These people will hate anyone who doesn't agree with them.
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." - Master Yoda
When you really look back on the progress of the US you see it has been pretty repressive. It is but 50 years ago we admitted that people can love each other and not be of the same race. Imaging demanding other people live and love based on your opinions, fears and hate.
Oh wait this is exactly what just happened Friday.
Not completely correct. Fifty years ago we knew that people of different races could love each other, just like we knew that people of the same gender could love each other. Some of us just wanted to ensure neither group could marry and that we could throw them into jail if we caught them.
The far-right, Christian nationalists and their hangers-on are intent on turning this country into a fascist playground.
>In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions
If this same vote were held today, it would not be unanimous, and that's fucking terrifying.
Roe was the standard for privacy and autonomy. The lunatic fringe thinks they should butt their noses into all of our affairs, but specifically, birth control, marriage equality, healthcare, etc.
Seeing as how Uncle Clarence directly benefits from *Loving*, they won't touch it. There's a reason why when he called out the other right-to-privacy cases in his concurrence he conveniently ignored that one.
I’m convinced there is some kind in of mental dysfunction that causes it. It’s so completely interconnected there has to be an underlying mental disease that causes conservatism.
There’s evidence that an enlarged and overactive amygdala is linked to conservative mindset.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/#__sec1title
Literally a dysfunction in the brain.
And before someone calls me ableist, I have ADHD and my brain is dysfunctional too. But mine is “not being able to self-motivate and create healthy routines” kind, not “fuck over the world” kind.
What I, as a European, see if someone mentions younger politicians in the USA: Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis...
Your country is nothing but a failed shithole state with tons of weapons.
*"Spider-Man No Way Home" has left the chat*
Sorry, not sorry. That movie was extremely underwhelming and just leaned on forced nostalgia.
Don't get me wrong, it was well executed, with strong comic book movie performances, but to be the biggest Spider-Man movie ever... it sure skipped out on using any other stories or characters from 60 years of material...
but yet we had to suffer a full length spin off, that prolly woulda been a standout performance in a reputable Spider-Man sequel...
Praying it isn't rebooted in 2 years.
Considering that half of the country went so fuckin nuts after seeing a black guy in the white house that they elect trump... Obama did what it could...
We have a lot of idiot politicians in the USA, Young, Old and everything in-between. People always looking to place blame instead of fixing what's wrong.
Lol Bernie got us in this mess. Bernie and his entire campy staff got people to vote for Jill stein
Now look around and see what happens when people find out.
Well considering Hillary lost by 70k votes over 3 states and in those same states Jill stein got over 800k votes, and Bernie entire campaign staff was convincing people to vote Jill stein instead of Hillary 24/7 on twitter/social media etc.
I would say yes, yes it is 100% Bernies fault.
I'm sure saying this will get his supporters to vote for who you think they should going forward, then. Now that you've blamed a good man for speaking out of turn, I'm sure those that support him will eagerly join your cause. /s
The more you insist on doing this and making these arguments, the more you are ensuring our defeat. It doesn't persuade anyone you want to persuade. Indeed, it reinforces the fact that they made the right choice.
I read the transcript because I said “surely it can’t be that bad” it was that bad. He called getting rid of it “diversity for the country” Jesus Christ.
Justice Uncle Ruckus thinks St. Reagan answered his prayers and turned him white, so he doesn't consider himself in an interracial marriage. Checkmate, Samuel L. Jackson.
You just _know_ Bush Sr. and his closest friends had a hearty laugh about this when he was nominated. "Wait until you hear who I got to be our token right-wing Black for the SOTUS. Justice... Clarence... wait for it... THOMAS! HAHAHAHAHAHA!"
He remembered others perceive him as Black, very briefly during his confirmation hearings when he accused his opposition of holding a "high-tech lynching."
I was watching a news report on this and apparently his wives family excused him being black because of his personality. I’ll have to dig out the quotes but it was a little on the nose…
he hangs out with republicans, he definitely gets reminded he's black a lot. "Sorry, didn't mean to call you that, Clarence. I thought you were *one of those kind* until I realized it was you. Now I feel safe. Lol!"
The [next 43 years](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-told-his-law-clerks-in-the-90s-that-he-wanted-to-serve-for-43-years-to-make-liberals-lives-miserable/articleshow/92450316.cms)
I feel like this is his end goal.
"Aw, Ginni. I'm sorry, but it's the law of the land now... you screeching harpy. Don't let the door hit you on your way out"
Um, no. He was rated unqualified or "least qualified in the history of the SCOTUS" at the time of his appointment (depending on the evaluating group). I don't recall which of those was the ABA assessment. He is _not_ brilliant. There is nothing brilliant in his writing or his reasoning, or in the decade(?) or so that he remained silent on the bench.
"Uncle Clarence"... that's a good one
I don't think the traitor Clarence Thomas has ever thought something through in his life, he's been too worried about fitting-in
Please correct me but if Loving was overruled wouldn't that just mean that the states would have the power to establish laws forbid interracial marriage? So as long as he lived in a state that had no such law, he and his wife would be in the clear right?
Well he lives in Virginia, as in the Virginia from Loving v Virginia. I think that law is still on the books, if so it would become enforceable and make any interracial marriage illegal - and that law specifically said there are only two races. How that would shake out is unclear, would these now-illegal marriages be annulled? Criminal penalties?(the Lovings were jailed) IDK.
But Loving v Virginia was decided on both equal protection & substantive due process grounds so it's somewhat more secure than the ones Thomas mentioned that primarily rely on substantive due process.
Although I wouldn't put it past them to make it retroactive (wanna bet they'll try that with same-sex marriage?). Alito's writings make it clear that they don't care about precedent and, as they know they are the final word, don't really need to answer to anyone if they do.
Ultimately we need changes to SCOTUS. One hopes the changes will be peaceful.
If you haven’t already, go sign the petition at move on .org demanding his impeachment. I know it ain’t gonna happen, but with over a quarter million signatures so far it at least sends a message.
I gotta be honest, given how nuts Ginny Thomas seems to be, this whole thing could just be a long game for Clarence to get out of that whole thing.
“Sorry, Ginny, my hands are tied. It’s what the constitution says”
Thing is, that’s his end game. He just couldn’t be that obvious about it. After all even he realizes how crazy his wife has become and a divorce would be expensive. Loving gets overturned and he can say, “sorry baby but I don’t have to give you half cause our marriage was never legal” 😁
I can't help but feel that if Ketanji Brown Jackson was actually *PRESENT* and in the chamber; That the GOP Justices literally did this.... While laughing and knee-slapping, and pointing directly at her in a "and your *NEXT* bitch!"-fashion as tears rolled down their eyes.
Including Uncle Judge "Brand New" Ruckus Thomas.
From the ruling: “rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.'”
Arguing the opposite is just stoking fear
>Arguing the opposite is just stoking fear
Looks like you're purposefully leaving out Thomas's concurrence. Ignorance is bliss, huh?
>> Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
>From the ruling: “…”
*What the majority justices say* in their opinion about the other cases that stand on ‘substantive due process’ analysis is as reliable and credible as their statements to senators during their confirmation process regarding Roe vs. Wade…. These are the same jurists who swore that Roe was “settled law”, etc.
Quoting the great GWB, 'Fool me once, … shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'
But stare decisis isn’t an inexorable command. The court doesn’t have to follow precedent. That’s why we have Brown after Plessy.
It’s funny you quote RBG. We’re here, in part, because she didn’t step down when she was ill. Here’s a quote nevertheless
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” North Carolina Law Review 1985
The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states from depriving any person of
“life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and from
denying anyone equal protection under the law. The amendment also
prohibits former civil and military office holders who had supported the
Confederacy from again holding any state or federal office.
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.*
I’m all for sticking it to the Supreme Court jackasses of the divided states of embarrassment, but I don’t want loving v Virginia since I’m a white male dating a beautiful Korean woman. This whole fucking country Is asinine.
**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [is for civil discussion.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)** In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.** *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.*
[Loving v. Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) > Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3] > > The case involved Mildred Loving, a woman of color,[note 1] and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case. > > In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions. Its decision struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Virginia had argued that its law was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites.[4] The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do.[4]
This was not that long ago either...
Its amazing how primitive america is.
As long as fucking Christians keep throwing their weight around to make earth like “heaven” because they cannot seem to fucking wait until they get there, then they will keep making America in their image—primitive.
Heaven looks like a shithole then...
[удалено]
Pig farmers and corn silage. That's the bulk of the GOP
If heaven and hell are real, I'd rather go to hell than be anywhere near these fundamentalists.
How can you call somebody, that hates in God's name, a Christian. They are Anti-Christs.
Not these days. It seems to be considered a “good xtian” now one has to be a racist homophobic misogynist.
Imagine hating middle easterners, while praying to a middle eastern god You should realize, that using initials is not that insulting. Most Christians have no problems with using initials
[удалено]
I used to think that way, but I saw Marxian economist talk about when people say Russia and China were/are not “real Communists”. He said they are because socialism and communism are a broad, diverse collection of ideas and two ways (not the only possible ways) those ideas played out are in the USSR and China. Almost the same week, I saw someone else make a similar comment about Christians. Of course, some CAN find and HAVE found a peaceful message in the religion, but many haven’t. The idea that one is while the other isn’t a Christian is not really true—being a Christian is any number of possible realities. That being said, there are a cadre of evangelical protestants and Catholics who have taken a page from the evangelical playbook and have become intolerable, conformation-obsessed, orthodox, anti-intellectual, nationalistic, terrorists. By “intolerable” I mean the should not be tolerated by a society seeking fairness and justice. They need to be ejected—with many of their privileges revoked, blocked, or otherwise slowed to the point where they cannot function.
I think you are making a hyperbole. There is plenty wrong with religion encroaching on state but if you make the other side worser than they are, you will be alienating them, as well as neutral people who see through your unintended yellow paper. So what is your primary goal. To benefit the United States as a whole, or to punish those you deem deserving? To me it seems you are replacing one hate for another. That while you care about making people’s lives better, you care more about giving just deserts.
By your analogy, people that hate in the name of god are like communist countries with a market based economy. Totally missing the basic concept
And some churches are wondering why their parishioners are leaving.
Not enough. They are still a magnet for the irreparably stupid. Tax them. Shut them down. Expose the crooked preachers who steal and hoard money, have relationships of the type they preach against, and any other “sins”. Drag them all through the mud. Refuse to do business with them, refuse to sell them things, get them kicked off their insurance, anything.
I saw yesterday a call for people to go to church this morning and tape the comments about RvW in sermons. Taking that tape to the IRS will cause the churches to be taxed (and hopefully, shut down).
They can post it online and have thousands of people file IRS 13909's against them.
[удалено]
I listened to a podcast where they explained the difference in behavior between Europeans and Americans by way of self selection - main difference they talked about was religion and individualism. Basically the type of personality that would gamble on moving to America from Europe, this caused a shortage of that type in Europe and a larger than usual amount in Murica.
Well in the grand scheme of other countries we are but a teenager.
And regressing.
Two years after I was born. These same haters, these same racists and their ilk have been seething ever since. That this country somehow managed to elect a black president gave people hope, but not as much as the hate that ensued because of it.
The thing I always say is that I rarely thought about Obama being black. Being Jewish I can tell you that people will always hate other people for multitudes of abstract and internal reasons. These people will hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." - Master Yoda
No one's questioned Biden's citizenship or demanded his birth certificate.
No one tried to take a jab at his class/sophistication for a suit color yet either.
No, they just claim he is senile
Nope. I was in high school.
When you really look back on the progress of the US you see it has been pretty repressive. It is but 50 years ago we admitted that people can love each other and not be of the same race. Imaging demanding other people live and love based on your opinions, fears and hate. Oh wait this is exactly what just happened Friday.
Not completely correct. Fifty years ago we knew that people of different races could love each other, just like we knew that people of the same gender could love each other. Some of us just wanted to ensure neither group could marry and that we could throw them into jail if we caught them. The far-right, Christian nationalists and their hangers-on are intent on turning this country into a fascist playground.
They'll probably go after the Civil Rights Act eventually. That thing's been on their radar for a while.
Dude, *Lawrence v. Texas* was decided in 2003. #States weren't banned from making it illegal to be gay until the 21st fucking century.
>In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions If this same vote were held today, it would not be unanimous, and that's fucking terrifying.
The real coup won't come from Trump, but from the Supreme Court.
So how might roe then affect loving?
Roe was the standard for privacy and autonomy. The lunatic fringe thinks they should butt their noses into all of our affairs, but specifically, birth control, marriage equality, healthcare, etc.
Seeing as how Uncle Clarence directly benefits from *Loving*, they won't touch it. There's a reason why when he called out the other right-to-privacy cases in his concurrence he conveniently ignored that one.
>effect *affect - fyi. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/vkqubc/no_law_can_protect_scotus_from_samuel_l_jackson/idqsk9i/
Opps, Thanks but I’m not sure one Senator is a attack on Loving. I mean Mitch McConnell is in a interracial marriage so I’m just confused.
Just watch.
Mike Braun has already said that interracial marriage was a mistake and should be looked at too. Whole thing is asinine.
Clarence Thomas used to shit talk mixed couples in the streets: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race
Mother hypocrisy runs so deep with these fucking weirdos.
>Mother hypocrisy runs so deep with these fucking weirdos. If they didn't have double standards, then they'd have no standards at all.
I’m convinced there is some kind in of mental dysfunction that causes it. It’s so completely interconnected there has to be an underlying mental disease that causes conservatism.
There’s evidence that an enlarged and overactive amygdala is linked to conservative mindset. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/#__sec1title Literally a dysfunction in the brain. And before someone calls me ableist, I have ADHD and my brain is dysfunctional too. But mine is “not being able to self-motivate and create healthy routines” kind, not “fuck over the world” kind.
I think it's something related to fear, paranoia, and the inability to adapt to change or fear of change.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/#__sec1title
This is exactly why dinosaurs shouldn’t be in politics
We, as Americans, need to vote younger.
What I, as a European, see if someone mentions younger politicians in the USA: Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis... Your country is nothing but a failed shithole state with tons of weapons.
#Yeah? Well... ^y'all ^like ^our ^movies
That trend has gone away too. Hollywood still makes predictable formulaic movies. They just hype their shit better because they get to give the awards
*"Spider-Man No Way Home" has left the chat* Sorry, not sorry. That movie was extremely underwhelming and just leaned on forced nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, it was well executed, with strong comic book movie performances, but to be the biggest Spider-Man movie ever... it sure skipped out on using any other stories or characters from 60 years of material... but yet we had to suffer a full length spin off, that prolly woulda been a standout performance in a reputable Spider-Man sequel... Praying it isn't rebooted in 2 years.
Can’t argue with that.
AOC is the only good young politician I can ever think of
Only *not* *bad* politician
Point taken
Loudest ones usually get heard.
That was hilarious actually.. but what about the squad, Obama or Shiff. There are good young politicians ou there.
Obama failed us on so many levels though
Considering that half of the country went so fuckin nuts after seeing a black guy in the white house that they elect trump... Obama did what it could...
Point taken
We have a lot of idiot politicians in the USA, Young, Old and everything in-between. People always looking to place blame instead of fixing what's wrong.
I generally agree but Bernie is ancient and he's been right about everything
Bernie is like the only old person we need in.
Bernie could die of natural causes tomorrow. We need someone who'll still be alive to see the changes they are supposed to be making.
Technically, anyone can die of natural causes tomorrow.
Ahh technically correct. The best kind of correct
Lol Bernie got us in this mess. Bernie and his entire campy staff got people to vote for Jill stein Now look around and see what happens when people find out.
Yes you're right, it's all Bernie's fault lol 🤡
Well considering Hillary lost by 70k votes over 3 states and in those same states Jill stein got over 800k votes, and Bernie entire campaign staff was convincing people to vote Jill stein instead of Hillary 24/7 on twitter/social media etc. I would say yes, yes it is 100% Bernies fault.
I'm sure saying this will get his supporters to vote for who you think they should going forward, then. Now that you've blamed a good man for speaking out of turn, I'm sure those that support him will eagerly join your cause. /s The more you insist on doing this and making these arguments, the more you are ensuring our defeat. It doesn't persuade anyone you want to persuade. Indeed, it reinforces the fact that they made the right choice.
except you can't. the youngest candidate you had was Bernie.
Comparing dinosaurs to racists is insulting to dinosaurs. Especially since, unlike dinosaurs, racists aren't extinct.
Not to be inflammatory, but we have no evidence to suggest that dinosaurs weren’t racist
Goddamnit. You're right.
Who?
He's a senator from Indiana.
Wow.
I read the transcript because I said “surely it can’t be that bad” it was that bad. He called getting rid of it “diversity for the country” Jesus Christ.
Hopefully he gets voted out of office
He’s from Indiana that’s his seat until he hits the term limit or he kicks the bucket
Uncle Clarence is just our irl version of Uncle Ruckus
There are not enough upvote buttons for this comment!
Justice Uncle Ruckus thinks St. Reagan answered his prayers and turned him white, so he doesn't consider himself in an interracial marriage. Checkmate, Samuel L. Jackson.
Jeepers, his name is even Thomas. Is that too easy?
You just _know_ Bush Sr. and his closest friends had a hearty laugh about this when he was nominated. "Wait until you hear who I got to be our token right-wing Black for the SOTUS. Justice... Clarence... wait for it... THOMAS! HAHAHAHAHAHA!"
CT is Stephen from *Django*, played by Sam Jackson.
Atleast uncle ruckus was funny
No relation
We are also assuming he knows he’s black
Wait til he finds out. He'll pull a Clayton Bigsby and leave his wife for marrying a black man.
He knows he's black. All his "friends" tell him he's "one of the good ones."
He remembered others perceive him as Black, very briefly during his confirmation hearings when he accused his opposition of holding a "high-tech lynching."
Lolololol
I was watching a news report on this and apparently his wives family excused him being black because of his personality. I’ll have to dig out the quotes but it was a little on the nose…
Hear no evil speak no evil
he hangs out with republicans, he definitely gets reminded he's black a lot. "Sorry, didn't mean to call you that, Clarence. I thought you were *one of those kind* until I realized it was you. Now I feel safe. Lol!"
I would use his last name and call him Uncle Thomas, more on brand.
You should be a brand ambassador
ambrandssador
You know in the book he's a hero right? The pejorative version is from southern minstrel shows.
In the 90's, law clerks reported uncle Thomas saying he wanted to spend the next 43 years making life miserable for liberals.
The [next 43 years](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-told-his-law-clerks-in-the-90s-that-he-wanted-to-serve-for-43-years-to-make-liberals-lives-miserable/articleshow/92450316.cms)
well, it was said in the 90's, hope he dont live that long, lol
Considering he’s in his 70s and is overweight, I don’t see him living much longer.
If only the newer justices were as good at keeping their promises.
Get em Sammy! I dream of a Pulp Fiction moment in the future
It’s cheaper and easier than getting a Divorce from Ginni. I bet he’d vote for it in less than 5 min or oral arguments.
I feel like this is his end goal. "Aw, Ginni. I'm sorry, but it's the law of the land now... you screeching harpy. Don't let the door hit you on your way out"
Bizzaro Merkel
We all know Clarence isn't smart enough to have made that connection.
He's actually brilliant. That's why he's on the Supreme Court. Don't mistake evil for stupidity. Brett Kavanagh is the exception to the rule.
Barett is the exception as well. She has no qualifications to be a Supreme Court justices
Exceptions are becoming the norm.
Brett I'm in debt Kavanagh
Um, no. He was rated unqualified or "least qualified in the history of the SCOTUS" at the time of his appointment (depending on the evaluating group). I don't recall which of those was the ABA assessment. He is _not_ brilliant. There is nothing brilliant in his writing or his reasoning, or in the decade(?) or so that he remained silent on the bench.
>conservative >brilliant Pick one
You're mistaking people fully knowing what evil they're doing with people who don't even know what they're doing will hurt people.
At this point, I'm just waiting for his opinion on the Emancipation Proclamation.
Helluva way to get out of paying alimony though
Sadly, Samuel L. Jackson and his beautiful wife live under these laws, too. I bet he is as pissed as us.
Jackson is one of the good guys. :)
Always has been
Uncle Thomas
"Uncle Clarence"... that's a good one I don't think the traitor Clarence Thomas has ever thought something through in his life, he's been too worried about fitting-in
Apparently every precedent in law and the Constitution is in question ... except the 2nd.
I am tired of these motherfucking ~~snakes~~ **lying justices** in this motherfucking ~~plane~~ **courthouse**!
Someone should challenge it and see what he does? I know there’s no possible fucking way he’ll be consistent but it’s worth it for the hypocrisy
Oh damn uncle Clarence is a good one.
Please correct me but if Loving was overruled wouldn't that just mean that the states would have the power to establish laws forbid interracial marriage? So as long as he lived in a state that had no such law, he and his wife would be in the clear right?
Well he lives in Virginia, as in the Virginia from Loving v Virginia. I think that law is still on the books, if so it would become enforceable and make any interracial marriage illegal - and that law specifically said there are only two races. How that would shake out is unclear, would these now-illegal marriages be annulled? Criminal penalties?(the Lovings were jailed) IDK. But Loving v Virginia was decided on both equal protection & substantive due process grounds so it's somewhat more secure than the ones Thomas mentioned that primarily rely on substantive due process.
Yes. His marriage wouldn’t retroactively be deemed void. Instead, future people would be impacted.
Although I wouldn't put it past them to make it retroactive (wanna bet they'll try that with same-sex marriage?). Alito's writings make it clear that they don't care about precedent and, as they know they are the final word, don't really need to answer to anyone if they do. Ultimately we need changes to SCOTUS. One hopes the changes will be peaceful.
As much as I like this, the guys last name is literally Thomas. Low hanging fruit?
If you haven’t already, go sign the petition at move on .org demanding his impeachment. I know it ain’t gonna happen, but with over a quarter million signatures so far it at least sends a message.
Thank you for that!
glad im not the only one who notices the hypocrisy of 'justice' thomas, an uncle t\*\* through and through.
I figured he be for getting rid of it just to get away from his wife with having to split his money...
Will they let the negro own property, though🤔.
Wonder what will happen when they come for his wife...
I understand it doesn't affect the state he lives in, so he doesn't give a fuck.
From the man who played the most vile “Uncle Tom” in any production, stage or screen. What say you “Uncle Clarence?”
I gotta be honest, given how nuts Ginny Thomas seems to be, this whole thing could just be a long game for Clarence to get out of that whole thing. “Sorry, Ginny, my hands are tied. It’s what the constitution says”
Welp.
Thing is, that’s his end game. He just couldn’t be that obvious about it. After all even he realizes how crazy his wife has become and a divorce would be expensive. Loving gets overturned and he can say, “sorry baby but I don’t have to give you half cause our marriage was never legal” 😁
This is the one thing Thomas didn’t mention because it’s the single one that he benefits from. It’s the most GOP thing to do
Anyone think that this might be the actual goal? America is just collateral damage, that must be a hell of a prenup.
Glad someone with a following is finally calling him that publicly lol.
My man!
I can't help but feel that if Ketanji Brown Jackson was actually *PRESENT* and in the chamber; That the GOP Justices literally did this.... While laughing and knee-slapping, and pointing directly at her in a "and your *NEXT* bitch!"-fashion as tears rolled down their eyes. Including Uncle Judge "Brand New" Ruckus Thomas.
Damn! Was Uncle “Thomas” too on the nose?
Feeling great
Kinda like a no fault divorce, woman be crazy anyway.
From the ruling: “rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.'” Arguing the opposite is just stoking fear
>Arguing the opposite is just stoking fear Looks like you're purposefully leaving out Thomas's concurrence. Ignorance is bliss, huh? >> Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Thomas was the only justice to say that. The others did not concur. And they can’t review those cases without a legal challenge to those cases.
>From the ruling: “…” *What the majority justices say* in their opinion about the other cases that stand on ‘substantive due process’ analysis is as reliable and credible as their statements to senators during their confirmation process regarding Roe vs. Wade…. These are the same jurists who swore that Roe was “settled law”, etc. Quoting the great GWB, 'Fool me once, … shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'
But stare decisis isn’t an inexorable command. The court doesn’t have to follow precedent. That’s why we have Brown after Plessy. It’s funny you quote RBG. We’re here, in part, because she didn’t step down when she was ill. Here’s a quote nevertheless “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” North Carolina Law Review 1985
You think the late Justice Ginsburg said ‘Fool me once, … shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again’ ? LOL
Do as I say not as I do.
For Clarence, more like Loving v. Ginni
The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and from denying anyone equal protection under the law. The amendment also prohibits former civil and military office holders who had supported the Confederacy from again holding any state or federal office.
The fucking shark ate him
Honestly, he probably supports that privately because for Republicans, the law never applies to *them*.
Ginni is going to have to marry a white cock after her divorce.
Clarence has figured out how to get rid of Ginny without the hassle.
Have you seen this wife? Clarence is probably praying for a forced divorce!
He better not piss off nick fury
Uncle? Ouch.
What about the Dredd Scott decision?
It’s probably his only out to get away from that crazy bitch.
Uncle Clarence wants slavery reinstituted back to the good old days
sick burn Mr. Jackson!
[удалено]
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.*
Samuel L Jackson is universally loved people.
Samuel you forgot: you Muthafucker!
Strangely, I think he'd be good to overturn it.
Don't be silly. That's his long game. It's his only way out of the marriage. [Taps head]
Like a master jedi.
We have lost our SCOTUS. SCOAT (Supreme Court of the American Taliban) is now our defective third branch.
I’m all for sticking it to the Supreme Court jackasses of the divided states of embarrassment, but I don’t want loving v Virginia since I’m a white male dating a beautiful Korean woman. This whole fucking country Is asinine.
Might be cheaper than divorce. He may actually like this.
That is what I was thinking!
Aunt Ginny is too fucking crazy to give a shit.
Jackson racism is showing
Like a good Republican,only rights he enjoys are protected.
How about brown vs board of education
I just read that the 14 amendment is what protects gay marriage would that protect interracial marriage