|
Let's all take a moment to be stunned that Thomas didn't see anything wrong with racism. 
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Let's all take a moment to be stunned that Thomas didn't see anything wrong with racism. Nah, that's Alito, Thomas just doesn't think that whether something is racist has any bearing on jurisprudence and, more generally, believes strongly that consequentialism is for wimps. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Wise man, good things, bad things, loving moron, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Wise man, good things, bad things, loving moron, etc. Truly an Evergreen Tweet
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Nah, that's Alito, Thomas just doesn't think that whether something is racist has any bearing on jurisprudence and, more generally, believes strongly that consequentialism is for wimps. Thomas actually does occasionally use antiracist and/or consequentialist arguments. For example, I think in an opinion in an eminent domain case, he pointed out the real-world implications of using "economic blight" as a justification for taking land to give to private developers. He can be really myopic on criminal procedure issues, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Thomas joined the liberals (and was the deciding vote) in the case concerning license plates and the confederate flag, and wrote the only pure dissent in the cross burning case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Thomas actually does occasionally use antiracist and/or consequentialist arguments. For example, I think in an opinion in an eminent domain case, he pointed out the real-world implications of using "economic blight" as a justification for taking land to give to private developers. I had not heard of that one. I knew he makes an exception for KKK-style terrorism though, and the related license plate thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
quote:In his dissent, ... too far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:... too far? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:... too far? Yes, because the response is "liberal uses racist term against Supreme Court Justice"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes, because the response is "So much for the tolerant Left"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Uncle Thomas is a clever and appropriate criticism of Justice Thomas' quiet assent to the new Jim Crow. There is nothing intolerant about drawing parallel between him and an era where out of sight, out of mind was the way disaffected, wealthy people could afford to ignore the plight of POC. poo poo, the election of Donald Trump is partially a case study in disaffected, well-off individuals--right and, depressingly, left--placing....you know what gently caress it. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Justice Thomas is the best justice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Uncle Thomas is a clever and appropriate criticism of Justice Thomas' quiet assent to the new Jim Crow. Actually, it's never OK to use a slur against a POC regardless of how mild it is. Call him ignorant, short-sighted, whatever. There's no need to make even mild racial attacks against him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
This was a pretty good article regarding Clarence Thomas' dissent.quote:I’m not one to Black-check other Black people. I don’t like using phrases like “Uncle Tom” or “race traitor” or any insult that denies another Black person his or her Blackness. Blackness comes in many forms. Black people are not a monolith. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that when it comes to matters of race, Clarence Thomas consistently sides against Black people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Yeah, as someone who has been accused of being a traitor to their minority group for my political views it'd be pretty great if we could just kinda not do that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Yeah, as someone who has been accused of being a traitor to their minority group for my political views it'd be pretty great if we could just kinda not do that poo poo. Seems reasonable to call him out for consistently ruling against the interests of black people, the term traitor seems unfair though as it assumes that simply being part of a group should mean you have that group's interests first and foremost. Much like calling working people who vote to disband unions and for tax cuts on the wealthy class traitors doesn't really work as a persuasive or even necessarily accurate depiction of their actions. Of course that assumes treason is kept as a purely legal concept, where you can only really betray your country/sovereign. Which I don't think is unreasonable although I could see people finding that problematic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Seems reasonable to call him out for consistently ruling against the interests of black people Except what he's actually doing is consistently ruling in favor of the rights adhering to all US citizens and limiting their government through their constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Except what he's actually doing is consistently ruling in favor of the rights adhering to all US citizens and limiting their government through their constitution. Ruling that a man whose own defence called a witness who said black people were more likely to reoffend (and thus justifying a death sentence) was adequately defended is protecting the rights of US citizens and limiting the government in accordance with the constitution? Well carry on I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Thomas joined the liberals (and was the deciding vote) in the case concerning license plates and the confederate flag, and wrote the only pure dissent in the cross burning case. I'm still stunned he joined the license plate majority How the ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Ruling that a man whose own defence called a witness who said black people were more likely to reoffend (and thus justifying a death sentence) was adequately defended is protecting the rights of US citizens and limiting the government in accordance with the constitution? Well carry on I guess. Sure, a defense lawyer calling a witness who stated an inconvenient fact that was harmful to the defense doesn't seem to be covered by my copy of the 6th Amendment. Neither perfectly competent defense counsel who never make mistakes nor do overs for rogue(?) witnesses are constitutionally compelled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
IANAL, but it seems like allowing demographic information to be considered in sentencing presents rather obvious due process problems. With respect to the decision itself, after reading through Thomas' dissent, it looks like his objection is that the lower courts were correct in denying a hearing on technical grounds, and that the majority is choosing to ignore the law as it stands due to the charged and extreme nature of the case. I don't know enough about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to make a judgment about the merits of his argument, but it seems grossly unfair to characterize it as being motivated by racism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Thomas ignored things like the law also assumes/requires that your defense, you know, actually defends you. Also he's just outright assuming the testimony wasn't a factor in the death penalty decision and that the trial court wasn't wrong in making the same assumption. In this case the defense actively worked against him by bringing in an 'expert' to give a literal Around Blacks Never Relax statement to hurt the defendant. I hope the lawyer involved gets disbarred at the very least because what he did was beyond unaccepta...the article linked above posted:(Guerinot’s incompetence is overwhelming, even more so when you consider that he tried 36 death penalty cases over the course of his career and lost every single one of them.)  This person really needs to be investigated because I get that lawyers can be really bad yet somehow keep their jobs but come on. Has anyone looked in to his other cases to see if he'd potentially sabotaged his clients in those as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I'm still stunned he joined the license plate majority He didn't write anything, and while I didn't listen to the oral arguments, I'm just going to assume he didn't say anything. He likes to parrot the "colorblind society" idea but it's pretty clear he doesn't like the confederacy or the KKK and is willing to abandon his ideals when it comes to them. I think has the license plate case been about a religious symbol or anything other than the confederate flag, he would have sided with the conservative justices
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Thomas ignored things like the law also assumes/requires that your defense, you know, actually defends you. Also he's just outright assuming the testimony wasn't a factor in the death penalty decision and that the trial court wasn't wrong in making the same assumption. In this case the defense actively worked against him by bringing in an 'expert' to give a literal Around Blacks Never Relax statement to hurt the defendant. I hope the lawyer involved gets disbarred at the very least because what he did was beyond unaccepta... That's, uh, I...  I'm no legal expert, but it seems like that'd be suspicious even if he hadn't seemingly sabotaged the defense of one person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:He didn't write anything, and while I didn't listen to the oral arguments, I'm just going to assume he didn't say anything. He likes to parrot the "colorblind society" idea but it's pretty clear he doesn't like the confederacy or the KKK and is willing to abandon his ideals when it comes to them. I think has the license plate case been about a religious symbol or anything other than the confederate flag, he would have sided with the conservative justices It's hardly abandoning his ideals. He views it as similar to flag burning, and similar to expressing support for a terrorist organization. Viewed in that lens, it's perfectly consistent with his established beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:33
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Thomas ignored things like the law also assumes/requires that your defense, you know, actually defends you. Also he's just outright assuming the testimony wasn't a factor in the death penalty decision and that the trial court wasn't wrong in making the same assumption. In this case the defense actively worked against him by bringing in an 'expert' to give a literal Around Blacks Never Relax statement to hurt the defendant. I hope the lawyer involved gets disbarred at the very least because what he did was beyond unaccepta... The district judge (a black woman, if it matters) makes logical arguments for why she views it as de minimis. her opinion isn't bad, though i think it was inevitable that the supreme court would rule the way it did quote:Other than citing Martinez, however, Buck has failed to demonstrate that this case presents extraordinary circumstances. While the introduction of any mention of race was illadvised at best and repugnant at worst, it was, in this case, de minimis. As respondent points out, there were two references to race in Dr. Quijano's testimony. On direct examination, Quijano stated the indisputable fact that African–Americans and Latinos are over-represented in the criminal justice system. On cross examination, Dr. Quijano answered affirmatively when questioned about earlier findings he had made that being black is one statistical factor he considered in reaching his conclusion. The prosecutor did not make any race-based argument in closing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's hardly abandoning his ideals. He views it as similar to flag burning, and similar to expressing support for a terrorist organization. Viewed in that lens, it's perfectly consistent with his established beliefs. Sorry, you are wrong. His opinion in virgina v black make a passing reference to texas v johnson, which wikipedia overstates. Thomas never actually compared cross burning to flag burning. He has also noticeably and directly changed his position on cross burning (1) Judge Thomas’ support for symbolic speech during his confirmation hearings; (2) Justice Thomas’ vote in R.A.V. v. St. Paul to reverse, on free-speech grounds, a criminal conviction for burning a cross; (3) his concurring opinion in Capitol Square that erecting a cross is a political act by the Klan, and (4) his dissenting opinion in Virginia v. Black that cross-burning is not expressive conduct at all and therefore entitled to no First Amendment protection read all about it: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/justice-thomas-and-the-burning-cross/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Ted Cruz said there is going to be another SCOTUS Vacancy in the summer... Did Kennedy tell him he's retiring?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ted Cruz said there is going to be another SCOTUS Vacancy in the summer... Did Kennedy tell him he's retiring? I just can't see Kennedy retiring. It seems like he is pretty intent on his legacy being the progress of gay rights. He has to know that giving Trump/Rep. their 5th vote would undo all of that. Outside prediction: Kennedy hopes the Dems retake the Senate in 2018, and he retires hoping that a split Pres/Sen. will result in a more central candidate. ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ted Cruz said there is going to be another SCOTUS Vacancy in the summer... Did Kennedy tell him he's retiring? More likely his dad told him he plans to shoot a second Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ted Cruz said there is going to be another SCOTUS Vacancy in the summer... Did Kennedy tell him he's retiring?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
How does something like this square with the fourth amendment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I just can't see Kennedy retiring. It seems like he is pretty intent on his legacy being the progress of gay rights. He has to know that giving Trump/Rep. their 5th vote would undo all of that. If Kennedy is hoping on that, he either can't read this map or he thinks the Republicans will take a historic beating in deep red states in an ultrapolarized political system. Not only are there 14 more Democratic seats up for grabs than Republican seats, Democrats are defending seats in very difficult states like Missouri, WV and North Dakota. I see a lot of plausible R pickups and only one potential Dem pickup (NV) unless Trump is doing "Bush in 2008" numbers of unpopularity, and even that might not be enough to overcome a structural midterm electorate advantage and the fact that Republican voters might imagine their senator as a "check" on Trump despite evidence to the contrary. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:How does something like this square with the fourth amendment? ICE and CBP are convinced that there are no constitutional rights within 100 miles of the border. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Outside prediction: Kennedy hopes the Dems retake the Senate in 2018, and he retires hoping that a split Pres/Sen. will result in a more central candidate. If the Dems retake the Senate in 2018 (and that is nearly impossible even in a situation where Trump has like 25% approval ratings, the Democrats need to win three seats, the Republicans only have 9 up for election, and the third easiest seat to win is probably loving Texas) then the Democrats won't confirm anyone besides Merrick Garland. They might not even confirm him, because if things go so badly for Republicans that they lose the Senate then everyone will expect a landslide loss by Trump in 2020 when they can nominate an extremely liberal 25 year old to the bench.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
ulmont posted:ICE and CBP are convinced that there are no constitutional rights within 100 miles of the border. Lol if you include airports as border zones that is almost the entire US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Lol if you include airports as border zones that is almost the entire US. Yes that's their exact goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
It was obviously the founder's intention that unreasonable searches happen all around the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It was obviously the founder's intention that unreasonable searches happen all around the country. In order to ensure the return of runaway slaves, instead of to combat terrorism and it is unironically yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:53
|
|
