Interesting comments from the warped mind of a Supreme Court Justice

[Uzybone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?hp


The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.

[LeftishBrit]

1. So I assume he lives happily without a car, phone, telly or air conditioning

and I just saw a pig fly overhead.

[scrinmaster]

2. I think he means that you have a right to get one of those,

But that doesn't mean that the government has to give them to you.

[Uzybone]

6. But who is asking for the right to a cell phone?

we have a clearly defined bill of rights...."Justice" Thomas obviously thinks its too much, but he cant come out and say it, so he constructs an army of strawmen.

[scrinmaster]

10. Here,

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

[LeftishBrit]

8. And I didn't think the goverment did just give people these things...

not even in evil left-wing Europe, so what's he on about?

[Winterblues]

9. And who might I ask is saying the government has to provide those things.

I hear right wingers say all the time that Liberals are demanding such things but have never heard where they got that idea from. I know of no Liberal that says government has to provide you with a cell phone..Health Care yes. It is a Government Responsibility to "Maintain the Health and Welfare of the Nation". Virtually every westernized nation recognizes that obligation and fulfills it except the USA.

[AZ Criminal JD]

13. Where is that written?

And what the hell is meant by those words? Talk about subjective.

[jobycom]

16. That's not what he was saying.

He's saying some people think of luxuries as rights that the government should provide. We all agree with that to some extent. Someone who sued the government for a big screen television and a PlayStation 3 would be laughed at here. On the other side is food and basic shelter, and whether those are considered rights.

It's an interesting question, even if Numbskull Thomas gets left behind in the discussion. When the Declaration and the Bill of Rights were written, the idea of rights concerned mostly what a person was allowed to do, not what he or she was owed. You had the right to life, liberty, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, etc. No one said that the right to life meant you could get free food--it was understood that each person had to fend for themselves, even if that meant finding a charity to provide for.

But as America prospered, our ideas of basic rights changed. Citizens became viewed as owners of the nation, not just people within it, and so the idea that all the owners should get some share in the prosperity--since we all chip in to create the prosperity--developed, if not explicityly, at least implicitly. This came to mean that all people were entitled to food, at least, and very basic upkeep, as their reward for simply being part of this society, or even for simply being human. It came to be seen as cruel that people were allowed to starve in a society that had so much wealth that we routinely throw food away.

As society becomes richer, ideas about what people need for basic survival and function changes. Now people need transportation to survive, so major cities develop public transit, for instance. We now largely believe that health care should be a basic right, and the argument is centering around how much healthcare--should we just subsidize basic emergency room visits, or should we have an entire health-care system that includes well care, for instance.

So I think Thomas was arguing that some people want more than just basic survival rights, that they are arguing that unemployment and social spending should cover luxuries like cars, cell phones, TVs, etc.

The problem with his argument--and this to me demonstrates why he should never have been elevated to his position--is that he doesn't understand the different concepts of rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees, or rather protects us from government interference with, certain basic rights that involve what government is allowed to do to us and expect from us. Those are basic human rights that our Founders felt should never be violated.

But the rights he is describing are not basic human rights, but rights that people feel they have for living in the society that we live in. If I were a stockholder in GM, I would have certain rights involving that stock, like voting at stockholder meetings and benefitting from profits and such things. Those aren't basic guaranteed human rights that we consider inalienable and sacred, they are rights I acquire by my role as stockholder, and by various contracts and laws and regulations involving the stock I own.

As an American citizen, I am a stockholder in the USA. I have certain rights that come with that, and I get a share of the profit. Everyone agrees with that to some degree. Even conservatives believe roads and schools should be built. My tax dollars go to fund the government, and in return I expect the government to provide me with certain benefits. Those are my rights as a citizen, a stockholder, in this country.

Thomas, never very smart, doesn't see this difference, which is why he should have never become a SCOTUS justice. He's not smart enough.

[Uzybone]

17. I dont think its about intellegence

fascists can be very smart people. Its his world view that is warped.

[jobycom]

21. I think it's about complexity of understanding, or understanding of complexity

which to me is intelligence. His mind is simple. I'm sure he's smart enough to pass the Bar Exam and spell potatoe, but he's not smart enough to be a SCOTUS justice. I wouldn't say that about Roberts, Scalia, Alito--I don't like them, but I don't question their intelligence. I do question Thomas's.

[Taverner]

3. Obligation...funny he should mention that

Since doesn't a SC Justice have an OBLIGATION and a RESPONSIBILITY not to walk on people on your rise to the top?

[Vickers]

4. "our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities"

Hmmm, my pocket copy of the US Constitution doesn't mention those...

:shrug:

[rurallib]

5. He seldom speaks. When he does it is usually interesting. And odd

And embarrassing. Which in turn is why he seldom speaks.

[Ikonoklast]

7. More words of wisdom from Justice Thomas.

From the article:

“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.”

I post these quotes without comment.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Idiot pig talks! Film at eleven!

That moron token Bush Family Ass-Sucker Of The Highest Order doesn't have a clue. Ask him what affirmative action did for him, and you'll get a stony silence. The asswipe never opens his mouth during Supreme Court oral arguments because HE IS TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO ASK AN INTELLIGENT QUESTION.

Fucker found Jesus in the GOPigs' party, and got himself right where Old Man Bush could stuff him into Thurgood Marshall's seat. A sorry, sorry day for American jurisprudence. I suspect Justice Marshall is still spinning.

This fat fucker should just shut the fuck up and go away. Early retirement with his lovely GOPig wife would be just the ticket. Maybe he'll perform Rush's NEXT wedding, too.

Idiot pig Clarence Thomas. He should rot.......................

[Spazito]

12. Geez, teh stupid is strong in this one....

no wonder he rarely opens his friggin' mouth when the Court is in session, the other Justices probably have it taped shut with invisible Scotch Tape and Super Glue.

[merh]

14. It is his republican conservatives that believe everyone has the

right to their riches and the luxuries and comfort - he is so confused.

[BuyingThyme]

15. No Republicans support the Bill of Rights.

[lyonn]

18. Someone needs to describe the Bill of Rights to this Justice

of our highest court. We knew he was dumb but this babble is disturbing. He is talking tvs while the rest of the country wants their right to a fair trial, privacy rights, you know, just basic civil rights. How the hell did he get his degrees? Couldn't have been his ability to be rational. Affirmative action maybe??

Edit: Affirmative action was an important event in our country. It gave rights to those that were deprived of the ability to get a higher education. Many took advantage of this law and became great leaders and teachers. Yet it seems Justice Thomas felt "entitled" somewhere along the way. It couldn't have been his legal mind that put him on the highest court.....

[DCKit]

19. He can't possibly be talking about our obligations and responsibilities to Democracy...

so WTF is he talking about?

[Uzybone]

20. probably our obligations to the fascist state he imagines.

[DCKit]

23. Actually, that's all I could think of....

"Responsibility and obligation to TEH STATE" kept running through my mind.

I hope Justices Scalia and Thomas have imminent, nice and brief, retirements.

[fasttense]

22. When 30% of all I make,

is taken from me and handed to the government, I do deserve a chance at prosperity and a certain standard of living. (And I don't make a lot of money of course because if I did, my taxes would be half their current cost.)

I'm owed more than a pat on the head by corporations and lies from my media and gubermint. I'm owed a whole lot more for 30% of my life than what I'm getting.

When corporations buy up all the Nation's wealth then turn around and sell it back to me for twice it's value, I think I do deserve more than what I'm getting. As a pamphlet on the Boston Tea Party put it:

"Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Rate that the poor could not purchase them.”

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2007/11/02/america%e2%80%99s-first-anti-globalization-protest/