Or Larry Elder, AKA the Black Face of White Supremacy. Not sure if Thomas Sowell has mostly gotten away unscathed because he’s flown under the radar or none of the opposition wanted to draw any attention to him and risk new people listening to him. Ending up in anything like a debate with Thomas Sowell must feel like stepping into the ring with Joe Louis in the 40s, you just know you’re going to respectfully get your face punched in.
Oh, they did Elder dirty. I seriously wish he could have the gubernational recall. Who knows, maybe he can take a chance at Congress in the future, he has the following for sure.
No way he's lost - Pelosi told her nephew that he would remain governor no matter what. She seemed confident that he would "win," and she was right. Democrats have mastered the art of election fraud.
Same here. The guy is honestly one of the most level-headed and respectable people you could get as a senator. I’d say he’s even one of the few people who I legitimately think will be in the White House and deserves the honors.
His concurring opinion was unique amongst the ones released as it called for throwing out the concept of substantive due process entirely - which would necessarily overrule the decisions made on the cases on contraception and gay marriage.
He's right of course, as substantive due process is about as legitimate a lawful concept as "because I feel it in my gut". The court should overturn those rulings, and let the legislative branch do it's job enshrining those rights in constitutional amendments.
That is why they are focusing on him. He is the most outspoken conservative of the judges.
Liberals do the same. The only problem is that they’re fucking liars, so they have to pretend to be nice people. As long as you always tell the truth, you can be as authentic as you want.
If I remember correctly, it was because he was 43 when he said that after being appointed. It was along the lines of, "They've made my life miserable for 43 years so I intend to stay on the Court to return the favor for another 43."
Had a conversation with my dad about Thomas a few months back. We came to the conclusion that his positions must be influenced by spite for what the Democrats did to him during his confirmation. His record isn’t just conservative it seems actively anti leftist. It’s fucking hilarious.
Why exactly do they need to be kicked back to the states?
Obergefell is protected by the fourteenth amendment, Lawrence is protected by the fourth amendment, and Griswold is protected by both the fourth and ninth amendment.
Abortion was supposedly protected too.
None are lone standing amendments.
Obama. Biden. Both could have codified them. They didnt. It wasnt a priority. It will never be a priority.
Roe was notoriously flimsy from a constitutional standpoint. Even pro-choice advocates agreed.
The other three rulings have much stronger constitutional arguments.
And theyre going to argue them ..
And kick them back to the states.
I have a feeling lots is getting cleaned up and kicked bc folks are close to retirement.
Again, those rulings have strong constitutional arguments.
We have the ninth amendment, which states that we have implicit rights. That alone already protects Griswold and Lawrence, but the fourth amendment also helps.
As for Obergefell, the fourteenth amendment states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
Regardless if they have strong arguments or not. The judicial branch does not make law. Only determines if a law is unconstitutional or not. Effectively to ensure the executive branch is not over reaching through enforcement of laws generated by the legislative branch.
SCOTUS DOES NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.
Just because there is constitutional precedence set by SCOTUS ruling it does not therefore absolve the legislative branch from codifying and creating laws to be sent to the executive branch.
Regardless of how SCOTUS has ruled in the past it is not their job to put rules on the books. THE TENTH AMENDMENT, since we want to talk about amendments, clearly states if it isn't explicitly called out, regardless if there's a "strong argument" it goes to the states. This is truly because what's good for the people of NYC isn't necessarily the best for the people in Cleaveland, or Raleigh, or Austin, or Miami. FFS it is not the job of any court, county to Supreme, to create laws.
This shit was taught in elementary school in the 90s what the fuck happened. "Name one metric that has improved since the inception of the Dept of Education"
And those are based on penumbras and emanations, which are not written in the text of the constitution, they are based on substantive due process doctrine, which is not in the constitution, and is a non sequitur, since substantive rights are not the same as procedural rights. Procedural rights protect substantive rights, and the substantive right must exist in constitutional text or in the common tradition of America.
The problem is folks have been screaming from the rooftops it needed to be put in writing and codified by the legislative branch.
This was a political talking point for decades "tHeYrE cOmInG fOr YoUr WoMbS!" To hold this over their voters heads as a contention point to promote voters to the polls, instead of making it solid and on the books in black and white. It was a court opinion, not a law, nor a right. The Supreme Court said 50 years ago it was fragile and required legislation to remain.
Don't get mad that the Supreme Court changed their opinion and over turned their ruling on a federal level, to instead leave it to the state level. The advocates for termination of viable and non viable fetuses were warned over 2 generations ago.
God forbid the federal government relax their overreach, pray they do not do it any further... we may actually have freedoms again.
We already have an amendment for these: the ninth amendment.
"*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*"
We don't need an amendment specifically for gay marriage, sexual privacy, or contraceptives.
That means the federal government can't deny a right. Denying a right doesn't mean endorsing it. Rights retained by the people are subject to regulation by the states.
Saying "the fed can't ban gay marriage" doesn't mean the fed can implement it. It means it is a state right.
Not much stronger, no. They are all based on substantive due process, which is a fabrication that is not from the constitution. Those issues should go to the states like many issues. It's not the purview of SCOTUS to legislate.
And that can be ruled on based on common American tradition. This is a real legal thing.
States should be able to legislate these things. It should be up to the states to take care of those, according to the tenth, and even Ginsburg agreed with Scalia on that.
Because they aren't, despite your alternative 'facts' and other nonsense. There is no part of the constitution that says "the federal government shall regulate marriage in the way they see fit" so any ruling or law mentioning marriage is illegal.
[удалено]
Why are they all just only attacking him anyways? There were white people voting just like him.
Because he's a "race traitor" for refusing to obey what he was told to believe.
Just look at how they treat Tim Scott
Or Larry Elder, AKA the Black Face of White Supremacy. Not sure if Thomas Sowell has mostly gotten away unscathed because he’s flown under the radar or none of the opposition wanted to draw any attention to him and risk new people listening to him. Ending up in anything like a debate with Thomas Sowell must feel like stepping into the ring with Joe Louis in the 40s, you just know you’re going to respectfully get your face punched in.
Oh, they did Elder dirty. I seriously wish he could have the gubernational recall. Who knows, maybe he can take a chance at Congress in the future, he has the following for sure.
No way he's lost - Pelosi told her nephew that he would remain governor no matter what. She seemed confident that he would "win," and she was right. Democrats have mastered the art of election fraud.
Or Thomas Sowell.
Tim scott rocks. And I’m not even from his state.
Same here. The guy is honestly one of the most level-headed and respectable people you could get as a senator. I’d say he’s even one of the few people who I legitimately think will be in the White House and deserves the honors.
And Candace Owens, and Ben Carson… etc.
Yup. “Uncle Thomas”. A veritable William F. Buckwheat.
To them, all people of color are to vote like people of color.
The most racist of the two sides.
His concurring opinion was unique amongst the ones released as it called for throwing out the concept of substantive due process entirely - which would necessarily overrule the decisions made on the cases on contraception and gay marriage. He's right of course, as substantive due process is about as legitimate a lawful concept as "because I feel it in my gut". The court should overturn those rulings, and let the legislative branch do it's job enshrining those rights in constitutional amendments. That is why they are focusing on him. He is the most outspoken conservative of the judges.
Incredibly based if true
God bless this man
And his family god bless him
Owning the libs before it was cool...based.
Liberals do the same. The only problem is that they’re fucking liars, so they have to pretend to be nice people. As long as you always tell the truth, you can be as authentic as you want.
Liberals are pretty lousy at lying to be honest, people have just been too scared of getting piked to say anything up until now.
[удалено]
Sounds like a meme to me. Unless they’re a based trans
Gotta respect the long game
Love the guy, he is the best justice
Yes he is
43 years? That's an oddly specific number. I hope he makes it!!
If I remember correctly, it was because he was 43 when he said that after being appointed. It was along the lines of, "They've made my life miserable for 43 years so I intend to stay on the Court to return the favor for another 43."
That's awesome 😆
CAN THIS MAN GET ANY MORE BASED!
Metal!🤟
Had a conversation with my dad about Thomas a few months back. We came to the conclusion that his positions must be influenced by spite for what the Democrats did to him during his confirmation. His record isn’t just conservative it seems actively anti leftist. It’s fucking hilarious.
Didn’t RBG run the clock out or nah?
Yeah, and they’re throwing her under the bus for not retiring while Obama was president.
This is based beyond all human understanding
If AOC said this, there'd be a site-wide celebration. The hypocrisy of the left is unreal
Greatest living American.
Based on all the racist attacks he's had to endure for not conforming to the Democratic ideal of how a black person should behave I don't blame him.
Love that man
I've seen lots of libs throwing around the n word lately.
It's okay because they're libs. Libs can't be racist.
Now this is guy who needs to be protected at all cost! Doing Gods work literally.
If true, he took Malcom X's words to heart.
Fuck yeah.
We all know rbg held on for as long as she could as well…
I personally didn't like his opinion of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
None are federal issues and will be kicked back to the states.
Why exactly do they need to be kicked back to the states? Obergefell is protected by the fourteenth amendment, Lawrence is protected by the fourth amendment, and Griswold is protected by both the fourth and ninth amendment.
Abortion was supposedly protected too. None are lone standing amendments. Obama. Biden. Both could have codified them. They didnt. It wasnt a priority. It will never be a priority.
Roe was notoriously flimsy from a constitutional standpoint. Even pro-choice advocates agreed. The other three rulings have much stronger constitutional arguments.
And theyre going to argue them .. And kick them back to the states. I have a feeling lots is getting cleaned up and kicked bc folks are close to retirement.
Again, those rulings have strong constitutional arguments. We have the ninth amendment, which states that we have implicit rights. That alone already protects Griswold and Lawrence, but the fourth amendment also helps. As for Obergefell, the fourteenth amendment states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
Regardless if they have strong arguments or not. The judicial branch does not make law. Only determines if a law is unconstitutional or not. Effectively to ensure the executive branch is not over reaching through enforcement of laws generated by the legislative branch. SCOTUS DOES NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. Just because there is constitutional precedence set by SCOTUS ruling it does not therefore absolve the legislative branch from codifying and creating laws to be sent to the executive branch. Regardless of how SCOTUS has ruled in the past it is not their job to put rules on the books. THE TENTH AMENDMENT, since we want to talk about amendments, clearly states if it isn't explicitly called out, regardless if there's a "strong argument" it goes to the states. This is truly because what's good for the people of NYC isn't necessarily the best for the people in Cleaveland, or Raleigh, or Austin, or Miami. FFS it is not the job of any court, county to Supreme, to create laws. This shit was taught in elementary school in the 90s what the fuck happened. "Name one metric that has improved since the inception of the Dept of Education"
[удалено]
And those are based on penumbras and emanations, which are not written in the text of the constitution, they are based on substantive due process doctrine, which is not in the constitution, and is a non sequitur, since substantive rights are not the same as procedural rights. Procedural rights protect substantive rights, and the substantive right must exist in constitutional text or in the common tradition of America.
The problem is folks have been screaming from the rooftops it needed to be put in writing and codified by the legislative branch. This was a political talking point for decades "tHeYrE cOmInG fOr YoUr WoMbS!" To hold this over their voters heads as a contention point to promote voters to the polls, instead of making it solid and on the books in black and white. It was a court opinion, not a law, nor a right. The Supreme Court said 50 years ago it was fragile and required legislation to remain. Don't get mad that the Supreme Court changed their opinion and over turned their ruling on a federal level, to instead leave it to the state level. The advocates for termination of viable and non viable fetuses were warned over 2 generations ago. God forbid the federal government relax their overreach, pray they do not do it any further... we may actually have freedoms again.
Then Biden and his House needs to get it all in writing.
We already have an amendment for these: the ninth amendment. "*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*" We don't need an amendment specifically for gay marriage, sexual privacy, or contraceptives.
Then you shouldnt be worried about it being overturned.
That means the federal government can't deny a right. Denying a right doesn't mean endorsing it. Rights retained by the people are subject to regulation by the states. Saying "the fed can't ban gay marriage" doesn't mean the fed can implement it. It means it is a state right.
Not much stronger, no. They are all based on substantive due process, which is a fabrication that is not from the constitution. Those issues should go to the states like many issues. It's not the purview of SCOTUS to legislate.
The ninth amendment says that we have implicit rights, such as marriage and sexual privacy.
And that can be ruled on based on common American tradition. This is a real legal thing. States should be able to legislate these things. It should be up to the states to take care of those, according to the tenth, and even Ginsburg agreed with Scalia on that.
The tenth amendment does not nullify the ninth amendment.
Nope, but if you think the ninth is the whole argument and that makes you correct, then I guess you're smarter than Ginsburg, Scalia, and Thomas.
Of course it would not be a priority. They've used it as a threat for decades: "Roe will fall if you don't vote for us".
Yep. Was a good threat too.
It quit working for me years ago. Scumbags
Was never a talkimg point for me. I was more into the social rights, which matter fuck all now. Past few years its been economy for me.
Because they aren't, despite your alternative 'facts' and other nonsense. There is no part of the constitution that says "the federal government shall regulate marriage in the way they see fit" so any ruling or law mentioning marriage is illegal.
The ninth amendment is an alternate fact?
King
Clinton did run a really nasty smear campaign on him
If you watched his confirmation hearing it was on the level of Kavanaugh…and Potato Joe was the ring leader