Clarence Thomas proposes 'alternatives' to Bill of Rights

[kpete]

Clarence Thomas proposes 'alternatives' to Bill of Rights
by fizziks
Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 10:13:14 AM PDT

Today's NY Times has a brief article about a speech and Q&A session justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. The piece focuses on Thomas' morose presence, on and off the bench, and includes the tidbit that he hasn't asked a question in two years.

But the real eye openers are these:

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?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=2&hp

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/13/719543/-Clarence-Thomas-proposes-alternatives-to-Bill-of-Rights

[BattyDem]

1. Any Supreme Court Justice who does not believe in the Bill of Rights ...

should resign IMMEDIATELY!

:wtf: :grr:

[malaise]

2. 100% correct n/t

[aikoaiko]

4. You sound like the NRA

;)

[old mark]

14. Thomas probably hates them, too - You know that even

Democrats and Liberals can legally own guns!!!!
How can this be?
Maybe if just the Republican Right and the police had them....


mark

[Towlie]

50. No he doesn't. To the NRA, the Second Amendment is the whole Bill of Rights.

[aikoaiko]

52. Well, I was just making a little funny...

....but its true, the NRA is a single issue organization.

[aikoaiko]

54. Well, I was just making a little funny...

....but its true, the NRA is a single issue organization.

[SpiralHawk]

3. The Bill of Republicon Homelander Totalitarianism

Why do Republicon Chickenhawks like Thomas HATE America?

[47of74]

9. Because it limits their ability to dominate and control others.

[Soylent Brice]

27. Vroom Vroom Party Starter? lolz

party on!

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Hmmmmmmmmm, sounds like the resurrection of debtors' prisons to me.

[pleah]

6. There should be some way to get these crazy bastards off the SC.

Thomas and Scalia are two of the worse ever appointed to the SC.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. There's impeachment

But I suppose it's off the table for them.

A Constitutional amendment limiting the term of a SC justice might be a good step. Wouldn't help with those two, though.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

21. Scalia and Thomas

Should both be impeached although I don't trust Pelosi to agree. Remember in Mississippi in 2004 when Scalia apologized for Federal Marshals forcing 2 repoerters to erase their recorded tapes cause Scalia has a policy of no tapes or videos are allowed at his speeches. The marshalls thought Scalia's policy had been posted but it was not. So the denial of freedom of the press was curtailed at his speech? And of course no one was held accountable.

[pleah]

22. I remember.

I live in Ms.

[Ezlivin]

35. Navy SEALs can get the job done

They can just go right in and ask him to leave quietly.

[MrPerson]

7. How about the Right to Watch Long Dong Silver?

[fasttense]

10. What an idiot Thomas turned out to be.

We should have listened to Anita Hill.

I can just hear his elitist heart calling out to turn the United States into a full blown dictatorship and banana republic:

"Those damn Americans, they have too many rights. They should concern their ignorant minds with their obligations and responsibilities to the crown, I mean the dictator, I mean the President."

"The right to speak their minds? What's that all about? How dare they criticize their betters."

[Warpy]

11. This is another reason that man should be removed from the court

He is charged with administering the law according to what it is, not what he would wish it to be in the service of the rich.

He should have been impeached years ago for his massive conflict of interest in the 2000 election decision, one he shared with Scalia.

I would have voted for Satan, himself, running on the Democratic ticket just to keep more Scalias and Thomases off the bench.

Fortunately, I didn't have to.

[Canuckistanian]

12. He talks as if rights are "granted"

Someone should inform him that the monarchists were defeated a few hundred years ago.

[izquierdista]

13. A Q&A session with Thomas?

How does that work, do you fax your questions in to Scalia so Thomas will know what his opinion is?
But I do have to give Clarence credit; he invented the "mirror site" long before people started using the World Wide Web.

[Ikonoklast]

17. Just don't ask where Scalia had his hand as Thomas was 'talking'.

You really don't want to know.

:scared:

[ColbertWatcher]

15. With comments like those is anyone surprised he hasn't asked a question in 2 years? n/t

[jody]

16. Sounds like Thomas didn't propose 'alternatives' to Bill of Rights but supplements re Obligations &

Responsibilities.

I don't like many of Thomas positions but I don't see that as justification to mischaracterize his comments.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Except you forget that whenever a GOPer "suggests" "reform" ...

... what they really mean is to dismantle existing statutes and replace them with their own version of "law".

And you assume what you know to be "obligations" and "responsibilities" are the same as what he means when he uses those same words.

Don't forget, the GOP is still trying to justify what they pulled during the Bush administration as "not torture" or "criminal".

[jody]

23. I don't assume anything so please don't presume to assume for me. n/t

[ThirdWorldJohn]

24. Great

I want the first obligation listed to be the obligation of exercising my rights against those who would seem to want to remove my freedom to exercise my rights. Like Scalia and Thomas. Thomas seems to be alone and afraid. If I were Thomas I would be afraid to think that maybe Scalia is my friend. Really that would be so yuck.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

26. Then let him do so thu his Sen Or Rep where these things are decided

[struggle4progress]

32. One should understand his comments in context:

A Reticent Justice Opens Up to a Group of Students
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 13, 2009
WASHINGTON
... “Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?” ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=3&hp

A Big Question About Clarence Thomas
By Douglas T. Kendall
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A31
... Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period" ... The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html

Judging Thomas
By Jon Wiener
This article appeared in the November 26, 2007 edition of The Nation.
November 8, 2007
... During his time on the bench, Thomas has had more than a few opportunities to prove himself to be the most right-wing Justice in modern times (at least since FDR's nemeses retired during the New Deal). Thomas, of course, almost always follows the lead of Antonin Scalia in claiming to embrace the "original intent" of the Founders, but only Thomas has argued that students have no free speech rights at all. Thomas alone has argued that the First Amendment's separation of church and state applies only to the federal government, not to the states, meaning that Utah could declare itself a Mormon state or Georgia could declare itself a Baptist state. Thomas alone agreed with the second President Bush's recent argument in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President has the power to hold US citizens at Guantánamo indefinitely without a court hearing ... http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/wiener

Miranda rights can be overruled by Congress.
Justice Thomas joined the dissent on DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES on Jun 26, 2000:
Mr. Dickerson, under indictment for bank robbery and related federal crimes, moved to suppress a statement he had made to the FBI, on the ground he had not received “Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The Government appealed <on the grounds that> his statement was voluntary <as allowed by a Congressional law>. That court concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the admissibility question.
Held: (Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement could be admitted in evidence. Congress then enacted a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves.
Dissent: (Scalia, joined by Thomas) Today’s decision is not a reaffirmation of Miranda, but a radical revision of the most significant element of Miranda. Marbury v. Madison (1803), held that an Act of Congress will not be enforced by the courts if what it prescribes violates the Constitution. That was the basis on which Miranda was decided. One will search today’s opinion in vain, however, for a statement (surely simple enough to make) that <the law in this case> violates the Constitution. <Instead, the Court is adopting> a significant new principle of constitutional law, in which statutes of Congress can be disregarded, not only when what they prescribe violates the Constitution, but when what they prescribe contradicts a decision of this Court that “announced a constitutional rule.” I dissent. http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Clarence_Thomas_Civil_Rights.htm

Thomas's recent comments must be understood in the context of his long history of hostility towards civil rights and civil liberties

[jody]

37. One should stick to "Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities" and not

distort the context, but you knew that, didn't you?

[struggle4progress]

41. I disagree. When reading the remarks of a Supreme Court Justice, I consider it appropriate

to take into account what one knows about his views and history, in order to try to interpret the meanings of his remarks. There is no alternative, because (unlike the Bill of Rights) the supposed "Bill of Obligations" and "Bill of Responsibilities" do not come with any supporting text or interpretative history: they are empty vessels intended merely as political semaphores, and what they actually signal can only be inferred from the speaker and his known views. When he warns of a proliferation of rights[/i>], it is not inappropriate to remember that "In Clarence Thomas' America, whites-only lunch counters are permitted, but basic labor protections are forbidden"

[jody]

43. So we disagree. Have a peaceful evening. n/t

[Javaman]

19. excuse me mr. thomas, but isn't that a pubic hair on your coke?

thomas should resign or else stop placing his foot squarely in his mouth.

[L0oniX]

20. How about I just cut off his head and shit down his neck?

[unpossibles]

25. I'm sure the right is simply outraged about this....

No?

My bad.

[derby378]

28. Isn't this how some dictatorships get started?

Exceprted from the Constitution for "Democratic Kampuchea" under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge:

Chapter Nine
The Rights and Duties of the Individual

Article 12
Every citizen of Kampuchea enjoys full rights to a constantly improving material, spiritual, and cultural life.
Every citizen of Democratic Kampuchea is guaranteed a living.
All workers are the masters of their factories.
All peasants are the masters of the rice paddies and fields.
All other labourers have the right to work.
There is absolutely no unemployment in Democratic Kampuchea.

Article 13
There must be complete equality among all Kampuchean people in an equal, just, democratic, harmonious, and happy society within the great national solidarity for defending and building the country together.
Men and women are fully equal in every respect.
Polygamy is prohibited.

Article 14
It is the duty of all to defend and build the country together in accordance with individual ability and potential.

In other words, it sounds like the only real right that anyone in "Democratic Kampuchea" had was the right to work - and work his fingers to the bone for the glory of his diabolical masters in Phnom Penh.

[Posteritatis]

29. To be fair..

I wonder if some sort of at least suggested obligations/responsibilities back when the American founding fathers were writing the manual wouldn't have been a good idea, at least on a rhetorical level. "These are our rights; these are what we should do to maintain those," etc. I'm not sure what they would be, but I do have a feeling there are some out there that weren't codified enough and that could probably help things, assuming they happened.

I'm curious as to what others here think on that one.

It'd probably be a pretty subjective thing (of course, so are the rights to some people), and implementing such a thing today would be a spectacular, nightmarish train wreck, though. I can't see such a thing actually being written down these days without being politicised in "you have a responsibility to be heterosexual" or similar/worse ways.

I've got a couple friends who absolutely believe and internalize and act by the idea that they Be Properly Informed of pretty much anything political that they've managed to get some sort of frightening follow-the-news skills going on. Half hour or so a day and either of them wind up vastly more informed on a variety of topics than I am, including the issues themselves and what others on various sides of the issues are saying about them. They manage to pull it off for everything from municipal news to international relations; it's really impressive. I know no people whose voting habits I worry about less as a result, and I imagine things would be rather better if more people tried that sort of thing.

[Demeter]

30. I Think It Never Occurred to the Founding Fathers

that such a transparently incompetent person would be put on the Supreme Court by a bunch of similarly incompetent, duly elected officials, and not get his ass impeached early on.

They couldn't comprehend such blatant, organized incompetence, as such people would be too stupid to live in the 18th century. Social Darwinism and natural selection would have eliminated them early, probably before they could reproduce.

Life is too soft nowadays. The incompetents are fixing that, now. Life is gonna get a whole lot harder. And it's the soft, obscenely rich that will suffer the most as their paper assets go up in flames, and their hired hands, all of whom they have laid off, refuse to sacrifice a dime for them....

[Laelth]

39. The Constitution is about what the Fed. Govt. can and can not do.

And that's all it is about. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a document about what the people can or should do. Making it a document that prescribes the duties of the people would fundamentally alter its original purpose.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Posteritatis]

47. Thank you for missing the point

I'm referring to a period where "The Constitution is about _____" did not yet have the blank filled in because the thing wasn't there yet. React to what I said, not what you wanted me to have said so that you could fly off the handle.

[Laelth]

48. Strange. Why the knives?

You asked what others thought about a document that might seek to dictate the behavior and duties of the American people. I told you what I thought about that idea. I think it's a bad idea. I guess I should have said so explicitly.

Did you not really want any responses?

If I am flying off the handle, it's at Justice Thomas, not you. He should know better.

As to the manual you seek, many of those issues are addressed in the Federalist Papers.

:dem:

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--clarity.

[Laelth]

31. The Constitution is a document that creates and then limits the Federal Government.

That's all it does. It creates the government in the main text, then limits what the government can do in the bill of rights. What "the people" can do and what the responsibilities of "the people" are is not the proper province of the Constitution. That document is solely about what the Federal Government can and can not do.

Thomas was making a point, one with which I don't agree, but his point (that there ought to be parallel Constitutional provisions governing the activities of the people) belies a complete lack of understanding of the scope and purpose of the Constitution.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BeFree]

51. zackly, Good stuff, Laelth

The 'unalienable rights' of the people are protected by the constitution, keeping the government from messing with those rights.

Now we have a SCoTUS complaining about our having too many unalienable rights?!!

The Marines are allowing him room to pirate away our rights? The military failure is astounding, and they won't even let me at him. Something stinks!

[opihimoimoi]

33. After years of GOP Crap...we gonna listen to him??? Doubt it....

Anita was right...he is useless....hopeless....and clueless

and a pervie as well.....

[G_j]

34. a proliferation of rights

:scared:

[mountainvue]

36. Bless his heart and feeble mind. His is by light years

the weakest legal mind on the court.

[Political Heretic]

38. Sweet.

I got nothin.

[KamaAina]

40. KamaAina proposes 'alternatives' to Clarence Thomas

a ficus plant, or possibly the Ebola virus. :eyes:

[barbtries]

42. can he be impeached?

the bills of obligations and responsibilities: do these exist?

[ThirdWorldJohn]

44. He seems overwhelmed by the work

Maybe he will just quit on his on.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/04/clarence-thomas-is-one-seriously.html

[onenote]

55. any judge can be impeached

Of course, it would help your case if you could cite to an impeachable offense.

[omega minimo]

45. Slimeball

[eppur_se_muova]

46. Americans who "get" the Constitution propose alternative to Clarence Thomas ...

[Vidar]

49. A jack ass, as usual.

[Reterr]

53. I wish I could propose an alterbative to Clarence Thomas.eom