LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Does Clarence Thomas own a mirror?

Pee4Fun

Pee4Fun

GS PARADISE
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Posts
718
A black man thinking the way Thomas thinks can only be explained by mental illness.
 
Pee4Fun said:
A black man thinking the way Thomas thinks can only be explained by mental illness.
Click to expand...
yes, that's fucked up, because it will gut poor minority women in particular.

I also read that he's Catholic.
Should a Catholic have been allowed to be the Supreme Court decider on abortion matters?
 
mayfly13 said:
yes, that's fucked up, because it will gut poor minority women in particular.

I also read that he's Catholic.
Should a Catholic have been allowed to be the Supreme Court decider on abortion matters?
Click to expand...
I'm asking because I'm watching this youtube docu which says that during communism, abortion was legal in Polland.

But it's now ilegal, because the Catholic Church gradually gained power after Communism, and now it's dictating policies
 
colddiesel said:
6 of the 9 judges are Catholics, 5 voted to overturn Roe. Sotomayor was the exception.
Click to expand...

Don't let Roberts off the hook. "Concurring in judgement" does not mean he voted with the liberals. This was a 6-3 decision. Just because he personally wouldn't have overturned Roe outright doesn't mean he isn't among those who did. He would happily see abortion legislated out of existence with his ever shifting goal posts. He's as much of a menace to the country as the other five lying partisan hacks.
 
He may be less bigoted than some members in this thread. Everyone gets a mirror.
 
Chernosoth said:
He may be less bigoted than some members in this thread. Everyone gets a mirror.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's a good chance he might be less bigoted than you are, although both of you are far down that particular rathole.
 
Pee4Fun said:
A black man thinking the way Thomas thinks can only be explained by mental illness.
Click to expand...
In this thread: a white man tells black men the acceptable opinions to have.

...I mean, it's not like Judge Thomas is a SUPREME COURT JUDGE or anything. It's not like he is intelligent enough or capable enough to come to his own conclusions. He needs a basement dwelling white guy to help him out.
 
In his very home a white man is telling him the acceptable opinions to have.

He has his very own little white activist to help him come to his conclusions.
LittleDixie said:
In this thread: a white man tells black men the acceptable opinions to have.

...I mean, it's not like Judge Thomas is a SUPREME COURT JUDGE or anything. It's not like he is intelligent enough or capable enough to come to his own conclusions. He needs a basement dwelling white guy to help him out.312F8EBD-A77B-4D89-843B-843F22A34086.jpeg
Click to expand...
 
this was back in March, saying the quiet parts out loud:

braun was being questioned about Roe.v.Wade being returned to states' powers to decide, and then the reporter went on to ask (and ask again for clarification) as to how he would apply that reasoning to . He was very clear, only–after 5 hours of backlash–he said he 'misunderstood the question'. like fuck. He also went on to say he believed it applicable to Griswold.v.Connecticut


https://www.indystar.com/story/news...cial-marriage-law-loving-virginia/7131891001/
Question: Senator, you spoke about judicial activism. If this Supreme Court later this year strikes down the right to abortion, would you consider that to be judicial activism legislating from the bench?
Answer: I consider it to have been judicial activism when it occurred back almost 50 years ago. So I think this would be bringing it back to a neutral point to where that issue should have never been federalized, way out of sync I think with the contours of America then. And this basically puts it back to a point where, like most of these issues when one side of the aisle wants to homogenize it federally, is not the right way to do it. This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh in on these issues, through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge of not only things like we did navigating through COVID recently, where I think that was misguided, but in general. So now I think this takes it back to a point where it should have never gotten beyond in the first place.
Click to expand...

Question: Would you apply that same basis to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?
Answer: When it comes to the issues, you can't have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they're going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It's a beauty of the system, and that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I'm not saying that rule would apply in general depending on the topic, but it should mostly be in general, because it's hard to have it on issues that you just are interested in when you deny it for others with a different point of view.
Click to expand...

Question: So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?​

Answer: Yes, I think that that's something that if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that's hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Question: What about Griswold v. Connecticut?​

Answer: You can list a whole host of issues. When it comes down to whatever they are, I'm going to say that they're not going to all make you happy within a given state, but that we're better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did.
Click to expand...

doesn't sound to me like he was in the least confused. it was the 'agenda'
 
perhaps they promised thomas (through his cult wife) they'd not go after Loving.v.Virginia so long as he played by their book on guns and abortion and religion. of course, he probably thinks the same way they do anyway... he's got his, he's all right.
 
LittleDixie said:
In this thread: a white man tells black men the acceptable opinions to have.

...I mean, it's not like Judge Thomas is a SUPREME COURT JUDGE or anything. It's not like he is intelligent enough or capable enough to come to his own conclusions. He needs a basement dwelling white guy to help him out.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true backwards southerner. The name says it all - LittleDixie. Happy when a black man is supporting her ideology and turning his back on his fellow blacks. Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Pee4Fun said:
Spoken like a true backwards southerner. The name says it all - LittleDixie. Happy when a black man is supporting her ideology and turning his back on his fellow blacks. Makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...
How is this an issue about black people? This isn't a racial issue at all.

We are talking about abortion.
 
LittleDixie said:
How is this an issue about black people? This isn't a racial issue at all.

We are talking about abortion.
Click to expand...
No they're not. They're using those words but what they're really doing is crying and pointing fingers at the evil black man and making up lies about him to justify how they feel about losing the culture war they started.
 
Lefties still pretending that republicans will all go (D) if they're allowed to govern red states in a republican manner... how very NOT shocking... LOL

Pee4Fun said:
Spoken like a true backwards southerner. The name says it all - LittleDixie. Happy when a black man is supporting her ideology and turning his back on his fellow blacks. Makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out how racist woke leftist are.

Nothing about the justices ruling in favor of American democracy was turning his back on blacks.

Pee4Fun said:
A black man thinking the way Thomas thinks can only be explained by mental illness.
Click to expand...

Logical consistency and a basic understanding of law isn't a mental illness.
 
jaF0 said:
It's a BB, but I'm not sure about a corny BB.
Click to expand...
Believe he was originally known as botany boy...i knew him originally as corny-something, so always refer to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Comshaw
Investigate Clarence Thomas' gifts?
Replies
3
Views
80
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
B
Clarence Thomas Inexplicably Absent During Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Replies
10
Views
254
butters
butters
RobDownSouth
Happy Birthday "Justice" Clarence Thomas
Replies
2
Views
102
coati
C
icanhelp1
Is the Supreme Court complicit in the dismantling the foundation for free speech
Replies
9
Views
139
Philthy_Phil
P
butters
corrupt clarence thomas one of 2 dissenting judges in veteran's fight for education benefits
Replies
5
Views
184
X15
X15
Back
Top