Clarence Thomas favors re-enslaving himself

[DaveSZ]

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-thomas17jun17,1,3892729.story


Thomas' Take on the Law Rooted in 18th Century
The justice's historical perspective challenges many widely held beliefs about the Constitution.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas may be silent in the Supreme Court during public arguments, but he is not shy about making bold pronouncements in written opinions.

His latest challenge to conventional wisdom came this week in the Pledge of Allegiance case, when he opined that the Constitution protected a state's right to recognize an official church.


It is not the first time Thomas has tried to turn the standard thinking on its head when it comes to understanding key parts of the U.S. Constitution. He has done so by focusing on the words and history of the document as it was written in 1787.

-more

[DaveSZ]

1. .

If you follow Thomas' legal opinions to their logical conclusions, that he doesn't believe in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, as a Black man, he would favor re-enslaving himself.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html





Historical Document
Dred Scott case: the Supreme Court decision
1857



Click here for the text of this historical document.
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.

[leyton]

4. I'm curious...

how do you get to these conclusions?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. His conclusions are correct

Thomas repeatedly claims we should deal with the raw language of the constitution as it was written...well...if one does, then it follows that Thomas really doesn't believe the Constitution gives the government much power...he also has a dim understanding of the language of the 10th amendment as well given what he feels is limited by the constitution.

The man is a fucking hypocrite of the first order...given he feels so strongly...the only way he can go forward in life with integrity is to STOP using that education that HE got via affirmative action.

[leyton]

30. How do you get from 'raw language' to slavery?

There's some raw language in the 13th amendment about slavery, I think.

Still not seeing it here.

[LittleApple81]

2. Amazing heading, DaveSZ... gets to the heart of the issue. GO backwards

not forwards in human advancement and enlightenment..
Thanks.

[leyton]

3. Subject line is misleading...

there's nothing in your quotes about slavery, and access to the full article requires registration. So... what are you talking about?

[Cheswick2.0]

6. There is nothing in the full article about slavery either

I think Dave is taking poetic license as we are allowed to do here in GD.

[qazplm]

28. cmon guys

it's not that hard, if you are a strict constructionist, then you advocate not deviating from the Founder's intent.

One can argue that all or most of the Amendments following the original 10 (with the possible exception of the 11th and 12th) were deviations from the Founders intent, given that they encapuslated slavery into the original Constitution and didnt want to apply ANY of the Amendments to the States.

So therefore, the Founders according to a strict constructionists, would want the add-on amendments to apply ONLY to the government and not to the states, so that should be able to torture if they want to (as they were allowed to do for 100+ years), violate double jeopardy (as they were allowed to do for 100+ years) or conduct slavery.

They wont come out and advocate all of that directly, but its the logical extension of their arguments.

[DaveSZ]

8. Thomas

Thomas favors an interpretation of the Constitution as it stood before the civil war, and before the Radical Republicans passed important civil rights amendments.

Thus he would likely favor returning to the days of Dred Scott.



Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.






Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.





Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[LittleApple81]

10. I got your point immediately. And I am glad I interpreted it correctly.

Sometimes I miss posters' points pretty badly...

[MUSTANG_2004]

13. Horsefeathers

Thomas is a strict constructionist. He doesn't advocate ignoring the post Civil War amendments.

[depakid]

15. Strict constructionist? lol- another term that has no real meaning

I've yet to hear a valid and reliable definition of "strict constructionism" and I sure as hell have never seen one!

Seen a lot of ideologues who like to use that term though....

[NormanConquest]

23. John Dean's definition of a "strict constructionist":

Favoring criminal plaintiffs and civil rights defendants.

[qazplm]

17. if he is a strict constructionists

then he must by definition be in favor of blacks being 3/5ths of a person, after all, that WAS the Founder's intent and we know that strict constructionists dont believe the Founder's were wrong about anything.

He also must not have a problem with state's violating the Federal Constitution, after all, it was the Founder's intent to have the Constitution ONLY apply to the Feds and not to States, so there clearly is nothing to say that States cant prosecute slavery should they wish under a strict constructionists view.

After all nearly all the later Amendments weren't what the Founders had in mind.

Of course, one could make the argument that both the Amendment process and Judicial Review WERE the intent of the Founder's and therefore they understood that the Constitution would change with the times and the nation. But you wont find a strict constructionist making that argument.

Which makes the term "strict constructionists" somewhat of a oxymoron of course.

[depakid]

19. Supposedly, "strict constructionists" need direct textual

references- in other words, there's little (or actually there should be no) room for interpretation. Depending on who you ask, they are OK with Amendments- though these are also severely limited.

Of course, as a practical matter that's quite impossible, and in any event it's so at odds with our prevailing traditions of common law and checks and balances that you almost have to question the stablilty (if not the sincerity) of anyone who might actually be a so called strict constructionist.

[leyton]

29. You misrepresent strict constructionism.

For starters, the 3/5ths rule was a compromise, not a unanimous endorsement of slavery. It was an issue of representation; northerners wanted as much of it for themselves, same for southerners. As a result, they compromised.

Strict constructionism allows for less use of the necessary and proper clause and in general gives more leeway to the states, but that hardly means that strict constructionists don't favor Constitutional amendments. I've yet to find strict constructionists looking to strike down the amendments.

You guys are vilifying strict constructionists, and maybe it feels good to do that but frankly they are not all looking to re-enslave blacks.

[depakid]

35. if they don't believe in the "Incorporation Doctrine"

and many who would call themselves "strict constructionists" don't- that means that they don't believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states...

While you're correct that this doesn't mean they don't want to re-enslave African Americans, it certainly DOES mean that they would give states (like Alabama or Texas) the ability to take away every other one of our enumerated rights- not to mention those unenumerated, though recogized- by the 9th Amendment. So you can just throw cases like Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, Escobedo, Griswold, Roe and many others right out the window.

I take them at their word on that... except perhaps with respect to the 2d Amendment- which ironically has yet to be incorporated. Having watched these types for decades, I have a sneaking suspicion that that would somehow end up sacrosanct.

[qazplm]

37. with all due respect

you are seriously underrepresenting what SC stand for.

It is CLEAR that the Founders didnt intend the Amendments to apply to the states. Of course they dont have a problem with the amendments, but they have a problem with them applying to the states.

Of course SC arent looking to re-enslave, but thats the logical extension of their arguments. Look at what Thomas from his own mouth seems to endorse, that torture is only barred by COURTS and not by police since after all judicial proceedings havent begun yet.

Look at what not applying selective incorporation would allow. None of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states except for parts of the 5th through the 14th. I dont believe the 13th amendment banning slavery is targeted towards the states like the 14th is, but it may be.

Certainly none of the others are.

To say it "in general gives more leeway to the state" and allows "less use of the necessary and proper clause" is an understatement along the lines of saying Shaq is big boned.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. Yeah right....lol

Is that why he selected bush as president and the agreed that the finding could never be used as precident?

Strict constructionist my ass.x(

[madrchsod]

5. thomas should be a

traffic court judge. he is way over his head at the supreme court.

[olddem43]

33. He couldn't do that either -

Even traffic laws require interpretation and reason, and cops are always ticketing people who have done nothing wrong. Take it from an old traffic person who has often been to court as a witness.
Many times I have had to explain the (traffic) laws to judges. Clarence is just too dumb to be a judge at all.

[hiphopnation]

7. from what I understand

he's Scalia's lil' lapdog...which would explain his take on the law being steeped in pre-civil rights law.

As far as these goons are concerned you should be able to executed for stealing someone's horse. :shrug:

He's a fuckin' tool.

[candy331]

9. He is just a large part of the disease in America. n/t

[DaveSZ]

You could call it taking poetic license.

I consider my thread title necessary in pointing out the ridiculousness of Thomas' opinions - especially as an African American man and descendent of slaves.

:)

[Cheswick2.0]

24. I agree with you

good thread

[bushwakker]

11. A limerick

There once was a Justice named Thomas
He said, "I'll vote with Scalia, I Promise."
A conservative hack
On the court 'cause he's black
He inflicts all his harsh views upon us

[DaveSZ]

12. Here are the Freepers' thoughts on this article (for balance):

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155312/posts

[depakid]

14. "Original intent" is just a smokescreen.

It always has been.

Ed Meese used to try to tout it back in the 80's to support all sorts of far right reactionary positions- but Meese, like Thomas- was just another liar who has zero respect among legitimate legal scholars.

Aside from the obvious ("original intent" is to jurisprudence as "bodily humors" are to medicine), no one who espouses it is ever consistent. They simply use the so called "doctrine" whenever it's convenient to justify some end that's so outside the mainstream and so conflicting with existing precedent that there's no other way to support it! Note that it isn't mentioned where it might actually bolster progressive positions- as it can in 4th Amendment search & seizure cases.

It is kind of funny that Thomas would be so obsessed with the supposed original intent of the framers- you wouldn't expect a person who refers to himself as "long dong silver" to to be thought of as 3/5th's of a man... though that's indeed what they thought in only context in African Americans were mentioned.

[rasputin1952]

16. While I am not a scholar on Supreme Court Judges...

I can rest assured that Clarence Thomas will never be known as one of the SC's shining lights. He rarely opines, because, in reality, he has absolutely NO IDEA what he is talking about. He is by far, one of the worst appointees of all time.

For those of us that watched the Thomas hearings, we realized that this man has few firing synapses, and they may well not fire in any specific order.

I was particularly appalled when asked about the accusations against him, or if he listened to the accusations, he stated, "I would not waste my time". So here we have a judge, that would not 'waste time' listening to accusations...bet that makes individuals accused of crimes feel like they are involved in a system of justice.

:puke: Few things are worse than a person of exceptionally limited intelligence in a position of power...:grr:

[DaveSZ]

18. Thomas' views on torture:

"Soon after joining the court in 1991, Thomas wrote that the word "punishment" in the Constitution restricted only "judges, not jailers." The high court had adopted a broader view of the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 1970s and protected prisoners from being subjected to needlessly cruel treatment.

When Thomas denounced this view as flatly mistaken, Justice Harry A. Blackmun pointed out that his opinion would permit the torture of inmates by prison guards."

[rasputin1952]

25. Unbelievable...

I wonder how some of his ancestors might view that?

Or those that fought the oppression of the British Gov't during the Revolution?

Or those of the 54th Mass Rgt that lost their lives at Ft Wagner?

Perhaps he forgot what it was like in the 50's and 60's South; the dogs, the firehoses, the beatings?

Clarence Thomas is not worthy of licking the dog shit off of their boots. He is a disgusting person of privilege that perhaps should pick up a book every once in a while. He never earned the robe he wears, it was given to him by others that earned for him the right to wear it; they earned that robe he wears with their blood and sweat, and he would sweep that all away, because he has no soul.

A small man in a large body, who would climb to the top on the bodies of those that would fight for the rights he 'thinks' he earned.

I am truly disgusted...x(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Woke up to that in my morning paper the other day

The exact same contradictions you are citing came to mind.

[DaveSZ]

26. Right

"Is that why he selected bush as president and the agreed that the finding could never be used as precident?

Strict constructionist my ass."



You nailed it.

When states wish to deny people basic human dignities such as freedom from involuntary servitude, the right to vote, religious liberty, marriage between Black and White or between those of the same sex, state's rights are very very good.

When states want to count legally cast ballots, enforce tougher than EPA mandated environmental standards, or provide sick and elderly people with medicinal marijuana or assisted suicide, state's rights are very very bad.

That in a nutshell exemplifies the belief systems of Scalia, Thomas, and Ashcroft.

[rasputin1952]

27. Hey!...Long time no see...

since these Mod duties keep me kind of busy, and you are such a good DU'er I don't get alerts on you, I rarely get to read you anymore!

:hi: :loveya:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. Haha...you would have gotten to read me the other day

I was a very bad girl...as usual I was sorry and sent a note saying I was sticking pins under my fingernails for posting THAT! :D

[rasputin1952]

34. LOL...

not you!...:evilgrin:

[donsu]

32. what I want to know is how Limbaugh and Thomas got so chummy

and I knew what the poster meant.

[rasputin1952]

38. Maybe Limbaugh knew he was going to get his butt handed to him...

for all of the pill-popping, and needed someone to help in legal matters?....:evilgrin:

[I thought so.]

36. Thomas and Scalia are Opus Dai.

It is a fascist cult founded in Spain in 1928. The asshat Pope wants to canonize its founder. The most damaging spy was in the cult too.

So many here are paranoid about Skull&Bones,Worry about real time nuts. The have power and an agenda.

[MisterP]

39. Coca-Cola, anyone?