Thomas’ dissent is comical, or would be, if it were not so sad. As I read it, in order to protect potential victims of gun violence, you have to wait until a person (with full panoply of 2d A right, no matter how disturbed, insane,dangerous, deadly) kills the victim, at which time you can put the nut job in jail, but not take away his guns. Thomas is a judicial whore, bought and paid for.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Scalia in Heller.
As long as he doesn't get convicted for assaulting Ginny, Thomas is entitled to all the unregistered flintlock black powder rifles he wants.
Daniel I taught the Constitution for nearly 20 years. As a non-lawyer the language of the 2nd Amendment was clear when written. The American Army had a few hundred soldiers, mostly guarding armaments at West Point. Local militias had been called up during the American revolution. These folks had flint locks and other rudimentary weapons.
Initially the NRA was co-founded by a Union general who was appalled by the dreadful shooting of soldiers in the Civil War. For generations the NRA taught good gun habits and even supported tight restrictions on permitting civilians to have rapid fire weapons (machine guns and Tommy guns).
After a coup within the NRA, this organization has been supported by gun manufacturers who have, with Supreme Court support, degutted much of the legislation that the original NRA had initiated.
An ‘originalist’ reading of the 2nd Amendment would find no basis to permit multi-fire killer weapons in the hands of civilians. Ginni/Clarence Thomas are not dealing with a full legal deck.
If it weren’t for “interpretations” in things like The Federalist Papers, there would be no information on the crafting of the Constitution. Unfortunately, “originalist” interpretations call for SCOTUS to have the hubris (especially true in the case of Thomas) to believe they know what the Founders intended at the time they were thrashing out and refining the document. It’s like cherry picking passages from the Bible that support one’s personal beliefs(something the Right does with abandon and no shame).
Thomas was an idiot when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He hasn’t changed. I believe he was nominated for ideological reasons. Never a terrific idea.
WW Spot on! Once I had a personal opinion I sought to justify, I could find, especially in the Old Testament, a quotation that would support my opinion. [I could also find, in both the Old and New Testament, passages that would oppose my opinion.]
Wishing to second guess the extraordinary compromises that resulted in our superb Constitution, I could cherry pick from the massive Federalist Papers or select from THE MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA.
The ‘originalists’, in my opinion, are deliberately hypocritical in pretending to discover the ‘original’ meaning of language from the 1780s. From CJ John Marshall onward there have been constitutional precedents as well as amendments that relate the Constitution to changing times. For Scalia, Alito, and Ginni/Clarence I say PSHAW!
I agree. If we let every citizen have a single shot musket then at least mass casualty shootings would be thwarted.
Lawrence O’Donnell has it right when he says essentially that the United States is the only country that makes sure its mass murders have the most sophisticated killing weapons money can buy.
Maybe it explains why the right, which wants no gun restrictions, finds forced birth so important. Forced birth means more children are born. The shooters need more school children to shoot and the extremists will make sure there’s a fresh supply. Disgusting? Yes. So are the legal rulings that help the shooters be efficient killers.
Red states are working to impose travel bans to prohibit pregnant women from traveling to another state for medical care (abortion).
If their idea of banning abortion is so great why do they need to promote lies, impose a bounty (Texas SB8) on anyone daring to help a pregnant women to get an abortion, and to try prevent women from traveling to get an abortion?
Boy howdy. Women don’t like risking their lives for a fetus that can’t survive and Republicans can’t seem to grasp this simple concept, even when it’s been explained to them, repeatedly. Sounds like we need to vote Republicans out of office until they learn they’re supposed to protect their constituents, all of us, not just the ones with a gun.
Thanks, exactly what I was thinking. It makes me scream when loons like Thomas flap their jaws with phrases like “only acceptable if they were in place at the founding of the country and are rooted in our history and tradition.” If you’re going to say that, you should at least KNOW “our history,” which they either don’t, or they just make up their own versions to fit their prejudices.
So I guess phrases like “A well regulated Militia” weren’t around at the founding of our country? And “rooted in our history and tradition?” In 1789, at age 13, the US wasn’t around long enough to HAVE history or tradition.
Finally, just what in god’s name do they mean by “original intent”? Seriously? There WAS NO original intent. The Constitutional Convention was a shit show. The squabbling was so intense that some members just packed up and went home. Of the 70 appointed delegates, just 55 even showed up, and 16 of THEM said screw it and left without signing—nearly 30% of those attending. Madison and Franklyn were going nuts at the end, begging and pleading with delegates to stay and sign the document. Original intent my ass… it was all compromise—bitter, fraught, and not too friendly compromise at that.
Ironically if we went all the way to "only acceptable if in place at the founding of our country"--- Justice Thomas would most likely be property instead of just being owned by those bribing him. He also might not have any education at all, wouldn't be married to a white woman and certainly would not be a SC justice.
BCD Spot on! A number of unthinkable compromises were negotiated when the alternative was the collapse of the “Articles of Confederation” 13 original independent states. Identifying ‘original intent’ from this scrambled legal document is a fool’s errand, and we have a growing number of such fools on the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
Judicial precedents are bricks set down in constructing an evolving judicial building. One should be judicious before trying to yank bricks out helter skelter. A pile of bricks does not a judicial system make.
Judith The # of bricks is on The Federalist Society’s website. If we are talking of a brick s++t house, then Thomas, Alito, and one or two others should do it.
I'm replying to myself to make one more point that also amuses me regarding guns and the second amendment. The Founders were TERRIFIED of armed mobs.
Madison had pushed for years to scrap the Articles for a federal constitution, but was ignored. What changed everyone's minds? SHAYS' REBELLION in 1786.
It ended up engulfing several states with over 1,000 people behind Shays and no central government to deal with it. That an armed mob got that close put the Floundering Fathers into their carriages pretty quickly. Two years later we had a federal government. (The second amendment was a sop to the slavers, as are all the most terrible parts of the constitution, because the slavers were also terrified of mobs--BLACK mobs.)
Justice Thomas was the sole dissenting vote on the gun issue, but he agreed with the Dobbs ruling, in which the SC stripped women of reproductive rights we’ve had for about 50 years and thought nothing of it. It was as though women are not full people (adults) under the federal law and so should be at the mercy of each state for our autonomy, for our personhood.
By overturning Roe, Thomas helped setup pregnant women, to suffer and risk death; especially at risk are women with a doomed and dangerous pregnancy. The SC was warned women would be harmed if Roe was overturned, but they didn’t choose to protect women, they overturned Roe because they could. (The only significant thing that had changed since Roe was adopted was the makeup of the court.)
So Thomas dissented on the gun case and put more women (and men) in peril. If Thomas had had his way a domestic violence partner could keep his guns so he would be able to shoot his women, all women, not just the pregnant ones, and not just his girlfriend, any man, any woman. I guess waiting for death by pregnancy was too slow for him. Charming.
It wasn’t until 1871 that any state punished husbands who beat their wives. It wasn’t until 1920 that every state criminalized “wife beating” — women just weren’t full people under the law. (Source: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna124289)
In the Dobbs ruling, Justice Thomas already said he wants to revisit birth control, same-sex marriage and other rights with which he apparently disagrees. Funny thing. He didn’t mention the SC decision on inter-racial marriage. I guess he only wants to take away everyone else’s rights, not his own.
That echoes what I’ve been saying since 1982 in a op-Ed. The2nd speaks to “well regulated militia…” not individuals. The NRA takeover in the mid 70s repeated lies and like Joseph Goebbels propagandist and after decades, the damage was done. Every gun enthusiast repeats the mantra. Talking with a cop recently, I asked him about easy ownership of guns and he immediately pulled out the 2nd as a right even as I brought up two recent deaths of cops by guns. It didn’t matter to him. The NRA may be run out of business but the damage has been done.
The high court has made up doctrines over the years to justify their decisions, such as originalism, textualism, qualified or limited immunity (for police), which has often been turned into complete immunity. The current radical majority are poster children for judicial activism or legislating from the bench.
Shirley That’s one of the many joys of Heather’s substantive letters. They permit others to riff on her thoughts, which leads to a marvelous series of insights from a number of subscribers.
Thomas justifying machine guns, excuse me bump stocks on high capacity automatic rifles, is a craven and narrow minded view of reality in today's America. He's not helping us all to live better lives. Maybe he never was.
The depth of his apparent, legal stupidity suddenly becomes understandable when "gifts" come into play. He ties himself in knots trying to make plausible decisions based on either originalist claims or mangled reality. In his world, since automobiles didn't exist when the Constitution was composed, his originalist cell of a brain would infer that no law should be imposed upon owning one, nor licensure to drive it without training or testing, at any speed, with or without malice. And his bizarre, detailed explanation of firearm mechanisms to support his claim that a bump stock does not a machine gun make is the zenith of not seeing the forest for the trees. Has anyone queried him lately about the sun appearing to revolve around our planet? I fear his reply.
I so want to screech at the "good old boys," An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Meaning all pregnancies begin with a man. If you are opposed to abortion, you alone are responsible for any conception, and no conception should occur without both parties in agreement.
Technically, according the Thomas and the MAGAts, a woman is only eligible for an abortion AFTER either of several circumstances: 1. She has already delivered the child; 2. She has suffered a miscarriage and is currently serving time in jail for said offense; 3. Her rapist or incest attacker has adopted the child, or; 4. The woman is dead, having succumbed to sepsis, other related maladies arising out of the pregnancy or has committed suicide.
With that kind of thinking from Thomas and the magats, it strikes me that mandatory castration/vasectomy should be in effect for all males age 16 and older, unless they can prove that they would be caring toward the woman and any child born. IMHO that is no more extreme that what us women (those of childbearing age) are living with now.
An obvious conclusion at this point, “a judicial whore, bought and paid for.”
It seems fair to say he is also a wounded justice, prepared to lash out at those who have exposed his corruption. It stings! But rather than reverse himself and reflect on right & wrong, he continues to offer bitter & sour rulings as a tarnished and illegitimate legal participant. His benefactors will protect him. We citizens will not see any semblance of justice from him.
To wit, we should expect nothing but immunity for a former president who is similarly wounded. They are, as DJT himself would say, “losers.”
He is a small, stupid, greedy, self-loathing, insecure man. Imagine having so little self-respect that he would let a billionaire use him by buying his mom’s house and providing private jets. No character whatsoever. Lacks all self-respect. A very disgusting little angry man.
Thomas doesn’t look for precedent, he looks for excuses. He’s a puppet who uses religion and his scary god as a shield to protect him from further bad press while he waits breathlessly for Nov. and his prayed for election results.
Like so many others right now, a victory for TFG assures them that all the bribes taken will be pardoned or buried and never come to the light of true justice.
I had a client from Australia who explained his country’s firearms laws as “We decided that our right not to be killed by gun violence was more important that people having the right to own guns”. He owned a rifle, for which he got a license because he lived in the country and had livestock. Too bad the US can’t come to the same sane conclusion.
If it weren't for the Republicans, I think we could. Actually, I love the quote made by your friend. Maybe I'll try to move down there, should (God help us!) Trump win in November.
I'm with you Dianne. We will have to move to a sane country. None of us will be safe if the "Right" wins in November. Don't Republicans ever lose relatives or friends to gun violence? They must think that a gun safe full of automatic weapons will save them from robbers and killers. Unless I was carrying a gun on my person, there would be no way to open the safe in time to protect myself or my family. I agree with Daniel Solomon. Only flintlock black powder rifles should be allowed.
Australia is a very interesting place, lots of good there. But unless you like heat and humidity, you might want to avoid Queensland… (except for trips out to the Great Barrier Reef.)
My mum (a WWII war bride) came from Perth, Western Australia, a beautiful city with fantastic weather. All of Australia is not the Outback, though that is pretty immense.
I've been to a lot of places in Australia, including Perth, but never the Outback. Perth will always remain in my memory as the place where got kicked off a cruise ship after the pandemic hit in 2020. One of the good things about Perth is that it has a very nice, comfortable airport. We had to spend quite a few hours there waiting for our scheduled flight.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Ha! Love the alliteration. Seems to been the thing lately to describe MAGA republicans as in Rep Crocketts's bleach blond, bad built beach body about MTG and Ty Cobb's petty, partisan, prima donna about Judge Cannon.
Thomas seems to forget that he wouldn’t be able to vote, let alone be a justice under his so-called originalist thinking. In fact there wouldn’t be a conservative majority since there are only four white men.
I thought the same thing: would his white christian nationalist buddies have a sympathetic jurist in Thomas if they argued that the 13th Amendment should be abolished because the founders permitted slavery?
Wow! That must go over like a lead balloon with the women! I hope you Americans get the vote out like never before this November. I’m going to be pacing the floor on my side of the 49th parallel.
It seems that the right to bear arms should not apply to any gun technology not in effect at the time of our founding. About 2-3 rounds per minute should be the limit.
I've said this FOREVER. They want to be constitutionalists until it doesn't fit their narrative. Want to own a musket? Have at it, I have no problem with that.
It seems to me that back in the 1780s the idea of a right to arms, regardless of the well regulated militia hook, was based on 2 things that are not true today: 1) lots of people needed guns to put food on the table, and 2) there really wasn't a local police force in each town like we have today. They would never even have been able to imagine machine guns being necessary or the means to make an automatic rifle into a machine gun or large capacity magazines. The Supreme Court has dug itself into an illogical and irresponsible hole. Thomas, no surprise, is stuck the deepest in this hole. But no one said he was anything other than craven in his unerring instinct for the big money.
At the founding, only single-shot barrel-loading muskets were available. I’m for allowing each and every red-blooded American to have all those they wish. Also, the country had no army per se, and men could be called to serve—and needed to bring their rifles.
I read Heller some years ago, and I don't agree that it was as broad as to wholly discount the well-regulated militia. The Court *could*, in my view, have either at the time or susequently confined its ruling to the facts of the case - that a federal officer who was required to have a weapon at all times could, despite the D.C. law forbidding all handguns (nobody really respects DC law, but whatevs), have a handgun at home. It was never necessary; and in fact it was destructive of the 2nd Amendment as written and intended, to extend the ruling to guns everywhere without exception.
It's like that football coach in Washington, who was in no way doing what the Supreme Court said he was doing-praying in private. He had the whole team out there on the 50-yard line with the fans on the stands, praying, and some if those players were there only because they were afraid if they didn't joining, they wouldn't get to play. And let's not talk about messages on wedding cakes that NOBODY ACTUALLY ORDERED from a person who didn't even make wedding cakes.
I criticize the Court for making up the facts, or accepting as fact a completely, blatantly false narrative, just to reach a preferred outcome.. That's not their job.
I am happily writing today about Biden’s recent polling results. Finally, a semblance of sanity seems to be settling upon some GOP voters. Biden has inched ahead of Trump in the 538 average poll results (which leans in favor of MAGA voters) and Biden’s leads in the NYTimes/Sienna Swing States poll by probably 3-4% when it’s adjusted for overweighting rural voters.
Won't the MAGA GOP be disappointed by 2026 when the courts start looking a lot different than the past 4 years. We can hope we get 2 SCOTUS appointments.
Now the GOP seems to be savaging itself in front of American voters. We have been asking ourselves for months how any sane American could possibly support Trump, the criminal, autocrat wannabe More and more dedicated GOP voters are realizing the danger to America is not Biden’s faux “senility” but Trump’s self-serving inhumanity. This is all very bad news for Trump and his advisors. Over the next few months, we’re likely to see intense efforts, using distorted data, to prove America loves Trump’s America 2025 agenda. And we just can’t wait to get Steven Miller as our new AG. I’m eagerly awaiting the debate. At best for Trump, it will be a draw, if and only if, Trump can remain civil for 90 minutes. The likelihood he will descend into one form of boorish, non-presidential behavior or another is much more likely. Biden will be fine, like his performance in the State of the Union. America needs to get used to the idea that their next president is old AND extremely competent to continue governing in a dangerously demanding world.
...let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Republicans are working overtime to throw the election their way, or start a civil war if the election doesn't swing their way.
Well, it seems like only men have commented, so let me pipe up and ask if this is a typo. "In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson says, “enough!” Women had few if any protections from domestic violence at the founding. Men could not, in the eyes of the law, rape their wives. There was no protection from physical assault by a husband, perpetrated by musket or otherwise. "
I believe men COULD rape their wives? I believe it was legal until the 1990s? I was married to a man who assured me it was true. We lived in Texas at the time, and it may very well STILL be legal in Texas.
I think she may have meant men couldn’t be convicted of raping their wives. And, yes that was true for a long, long, time and still may be true all over the world sadly.
Meaning that the law had no provision for using the word 'rape' as it applied to a husband's sex on demand. That's just his right to his property, you know. (Huge sarcasm.) I cringe at the renewed trope, "Women should be submissive to their husbands."
Paul Butler's position reminds me of how I initiated Change For The Better with my then-wife's kids from a previous marriage. They had "grown like weeds" and were in need of some direction. So, whenever they did the slightest thing right, they got praised for it and rewarded. It took about six months for a 180-degree attitude change, which they have maintained since that I hear about them.
Ah, positive reinforcement! I've told elsewhere the story of my Ed Psych professor back in the day when behaviorism was all psych was about. He lectured from a podium in the center of the front of the room. So we decided to experiment. The window side of the class in the front couple of rows paid rapt attention. Took notes, nodded at everything he said, etc. The other side of the class read the Daily, yawned a lot, rolled their eyes, etc. After a few weeks--it wasn't many, he was lecturing entirely from near the windows.
No idea whether he saw what we were up to. But boy, were we all convinced how well positive reinforcement worked. And I've used it ever since.
I love this, Susan. B.F. Skinner was always correct! I use this same method on my cats and chickens. They are easily trained with positive reinforcement. People are no different than our pets, as witnessed by the former president's constant malicious hate rhetoric. His MAGA tagalongs give him all of the positive accolades he needs.
There are plenty of weapons in my kitchen, in the tool shed, the garage, next to the fireplace, -- well, you get the drift. The trouble comes from voters who don't realize that they will have their free choice taken away by Trump, should he win. Not even the Supreme Court's opinions can stop anti-democratic forces from destroying democracy at will.
The thing is, too many MAGAt women believe they are at the disposal of their husbands...a misunderstood biblical context. If he turns out to be unreasonable and abusive, well, that's the luck of the draw.
Lin, the trouble with your weapons (which are just like mine), is that they are like bringing water balloons to a duel with machine guns… I wish there was some way to get the magats out from under trump's spell.
“The truth is this: the Founding Fathers would not have wanted the country to live like this. Their muskets weren’t so sacred to them that they would have sacrificed our children to them. They didn’t pass the Second Amendment so parents could get shot in our streets on the 4th of July. The Second Amendment’s well-regulated militia wasn’t supposed to be shooting at us!”
Will "common sense" be the new Roberts doctrine? Let's hope so. Also, "As Justice Gorsuch correctly notes in his concurrence, 'Article III of the Constitution vests in this Court the power to decide only the ‘actual cas[e]’ before us, ‘not abstractions.’ Let’s hope he feels the same way in the presidential immunity case." I'm with you all the way on that one, but his questions in the April 25 oral argument of the immunity case didn't sound like it. Maybe he has learned something since then.
"Common sense"...well, one wonders where "common sense" disappeared to in the recent *Cargill* "bump-stock" ruling? I mean, a bump-stock-modified rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle
is a "machine gun" in all but name, and "common sense" alone would demand prohibition of such modifications without any dissent. But no, the far-right majority followed Clarence Thomas and his bogus animations into the black hole of 2nd Amendment challenges and waved through another weapon of mass destruction applied against one's fellow citizens in the name of "freedom".
Would it be possible to challenge the SCOTUS originalists directly by filing a suit against Thomas, (though unfortunately Jackson), for marrying non-African Americans to further illustrate their hypocrisy? At the country's founding Blacks could not vote, nor could they legally marry whites until 1967 after the Loving case. This reminds me of the furor that Ted Cruz knee-jerk reacted to when another lawmaker proposed a law that would require men to have vasectomies after 2 children, before he realized he'd been had.
My comment was about Justice Jackson being married to a white man and consequently if such a suit were brought that would also shine a light on her as well as Justice Thomas, which might be distracting. From everything I've seen so far, I believe she's a fierce advocate of the rule of law and her opinions are sharp and well articulated.
I hadn't really thought about Justice Jackson being brought down by comparison with Clarence Thomas, even though the only thing they have in common is being married to a white person. Because of how the republicans are, I am sure that they would come up with a negative comparison. I see Justice Jackson the same as you do.
Originalists keep leaving out the elephant in their room - that the Founders hoped what they had created was sufficient for that time and place, that their work was not and could not be assumed final for all time, and so that time and circumstance might require alterations to their blueprint. Had they meant their version of the Constitution to be etched in stone, they never would have included a way to amend it.
Thomas’ dissent is comical, or would be, if it were not so sad. As I read it, in order to protect potential victims of gun violence, you have to wait until a person (with full panoply of 2d A right, no matter how disturbed, insane,dangerous, deadly) kills the victim, at which time you can put the nut job in jail, but not take away his guns. Thomas is a judicial whore, bought and paid for.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Scalia in Heller.
As long as he doesn't get convicted for assaulting Ginny, Thomas is entitled to all the unregistered flintlock black powder rifles he wants.
Daniel I taught the Constitution for nearly 20 years. As a non-lawyer the language of the 2nd Amendment was clear when written. The American Army had a few hundred soldiers, mostly guarding armaments at West Point. Local militias had been called up during the American revolution. These folks had flint locks and other rudimentary weapons.
Initially the NRA was co-founded by a Union general who was appalled by the dreadful shooting of soldiers in the Civil War. For generations the NRA taught good gun habits and even supported tight restrictions on permitting civilians to have rapid fire weapons (machine guns and Tommy guns).
After a coup within the NRA, this organization has been supported by gun manufacturers who have, with Supreme Court support, degutted much of the legislation that the original NRA had initiated.
An ‘originalist’ reading of the 2nd Amendment would find no basis to permit multi-fire killer weapons in the hands of civilians. Ginni/Clarence Thomas are not dealing with a full legal deck.
If it weren’t for “interpretations” in things like The Federalist Papers, there would be no information on the crafting of the Constitution. Unfortunately, “originalist” interpretations call for SCOTUS to have the hubris (especially true in the case of Thomas) to believe they know what the Founders intended at the time they were thrashing out and refining the document. It’s like cherry picking passages from the Bible that support one’s personal beliefs(something the Right does with abandon and no shame).
Thomas was an idiot when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. He hasn’t changed. I believe he was nominated for ideological reasons. Never a terrific idea.
Black man to replace Thurgood Marshall. The Anita Hill did not fit into this scenario. And we’ve been living with this misjustice ever since.
Not ideological. As a Black man, they knew he, politically, would not be denied confirmation.
….And that is ideological.
WW Spot on! Once I had a personal opinion I sought to justify, I could find, especially in the Old Testament, a quotation that would support my opinion. [I could also find, in both the Old and New Testament, passages that would oppose my opinion.]
Wishing to second guess the extraordinary compromises that resulted in our superb Constitution, I could cherry pick from the massive Federalist Papers or select from THE MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA.
The ‘originalists’, in my opinion, are deliberately hypocritical in pretending to discover the ‘original’ meaning of language from the 1780s. From CJ John Marshall onward there have been constitutional precedents as well as amendments that relate the Constitution to changing times. For Scalia, Alito, and Ginni/Clarence I say PSHAW!
Perhaps Pshaw is a bit passé.
Bullshit is more applicable. But if you buy me a $300k RV, I might be persuaded.
David What can you get for $150,000? You can still park it at Walmart, if a friend jets you elsewhere.
Exactly, well said! No shame and no logic.
I agree. If we let every citizen have a single shot musket then at least mass casualty shootings would be thwarted.
Lawrence O’Donnell has it right when he says essentially that the United States is the only country that makes sure its mass murders have the most sophisticated killing weapons money can buy.
Maybe it explains why the right, which wants no gun restrictions, finds forced birth so important. Forced birth means more children are born. The shooters need more school children to shoot and the extremists will make sure there’s a fresh supply. Disgusting? Yes. So are the legal rulings that help the shooters be efficient killers.
Forced birth only for those without the financial means to have an abortion in another jurisdiction. Same as it ever was.
Red states are working to impose travel bans to prohibit pregnant women from traveling to another state for medical care (abortion).
If their idea of banning abortion is so great why do they need to promote lies, impose a bounty (Texas SB8) on anyone daring to help a pregnant women to get an abortion, and to try prevent women from traveling to get an abortion?
Boy howdy. Women don’t like risking their lives for a fetus that can’t survive and Republicans can’t seem to grasp this simple concept, even when it’s been explained to them, repeatedly. Sounds like we need to vote Republicans out of office until they learn they’re supposed to protect their constituents, all of us, not just the ones with a gun.
As with many hypocrites, what they say is not what they do.
Perfect!; parallel to Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.
Thanks, exactly what I was thinking. It makes me scream when loons like Thomas flap their jaws with phrases like “only acceptable if they were in place at the founding of the country and are rooted in our history and tradition.” If you’re going to say that, you should at least KNOW “our history,” which they either don’t, or they just make up their own versions to fit their prejudices.
So I guess phrases like “A well regulated Militia” weren’t around at the founding of our country? And “rooted in our history and tradition?” In 1789, at age 13, the US wasn’t around long enough to HAVE history or tradition.
Finally, just what in god’s name do they mean by “original intent”? Seriously? There WAS NO original intent. The Constitutional Convention was a shit show. The squabbling was so intense that some members just packed up and went home. Of the 70 appointed delegates, just 55 even showed up, and 16 of THEM said screw it and left without signing—nearly 30% of those attending. Madison and Franklyn were going nuts at the end, begging and pleading with delegates to stay and sign the document. Original intent my ass… it was all compromise—bitter, fraught, and not too friendly compromise at that.
Ironically if we went all the way to "only acceptable if in place at the founding of our country"--- Justice Thomas would most likely be property instead of just being owned by those bribing him. He also might not have any education at all, wouldn't be married to a white woman and certainly would not be a SC justice.
HAHAHAHA!! Yes! Thanks, good laugh!
Dr. B - I was about to respond to befnyc's excellent point with something similar, but you put it way more brilliantly and hilariously! Thank you!
BCD Spot on! A number of unthinkable compromises were negotiated when the alternative was the collapse of the “Articles of Confederation” 13 original independent states. Identifying ‘original intent’ from this scrambled legal document is a fool’s errand, and we have a growing number of such fools on the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
Judicial precedents are bricks set down in constructing an evolving judicial building. One should be judicious before trying to yank bricks out helter skelter. A pile of bricks does not a judicial system make.
Excellent analogy!
And how many bricks can be yanked out before the Jenga tower collapses?
Judith The # of bricks is on The Federalist Society’s website. If we are talking of a brick s++t house, then Thomas, Alito, and one or two others should do it.
I'm replying to myself to make one more point that also amuses me regarding guns and the second amendment. The Founders were TERRIFIED of armed mobs.
Madison had pushed for years to scrap the Articles for a federal constitution, but was ignored. What changed everyone's minds? SHAYS' REBELLION in 1786.
It ended up engulfing several states with over 1,000 people behind Shays and no central government to deal with it. That an armed mob got that close put the Floundering Fathers into their carriages pretty quickly. Two years later we had a federal government. (The second amendment was a sop to the slavers, as are all the most terrible parts of the constitution, because the slavers were also terrified of mobs--BLACK mobs.)
Justice Thomas was the sole dissenting vote on the gun issue, but he agreed with the Dobbs ruling, in which the SC stripped women of reproductive rights we’ve had for about 50 years and thought nothing of it. It was as though women are not full people (adults) under the federal law and so should be at the mercy of each state for our autonomy, for our personhood.
By overturning Roe, Thomas helped setup pregnant women, to suffer and risk death; especially at risk are women with a doomed and dangerous pregnancy. The SC was warned women would be harmed if Roe was overturned, but they didn’t choose to protect women, they overturned Roe because they could. (The only significant thing that had changed since Roe was adopted was the makeup of the court.)
So Thomas dissented on the gun case and put more women (and men) in peril. If Thomas had had his way a domestic violence partner could keep his guns so he would be able to shoot his women, all women, not just the pregnant ones, and not just his girlfriend, any man, any woman. I guess waiting for death by pregnancy was too slow for him. Charming.
It wasn’t until 1871 that any state punished husbands who beat their wives. It wasn’t until 1920 that every state criminalized “wife beating” — women just weren’t full people under the law. (Source: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna124289)
In the Dobbs ruling, Justice Thomas already said he wants to revisit birth control, same-sex marriage and other rights with which he apparently disagrees. Funny thing. He didn’t mention the SC decision on inter-racial marriage. I guess he only wants to take away everyone else’s rights, not his own.
That echoes what I’ve been saying since 1982 in a op-Ed. The2nd speaks to “well regulated militia…” not individuals. The NRA takeover in the mid 70s repeated lies and like Joseph Goebbels propagandist and after decades, the damage was done. Every gun enthusiast repeats the mantra. Talking with a cop recently, I asked him about easy ownership of guns and he immediately pulled out the 2nd as a right even as I brought up two recent deaths of cops by guns. It didn’t matter to him. The NRA may be run out of business but the damage has been done.
And the cards in the deck are marked.
The high court has made up doctrines over the years to justify their decisions, such as originalism, textualism, qualified or limited immunity (for police), which has often been turned into complete immunity. The current radical majority are poster children for judicial activism or legislating from the bench.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I’m learning.
Shirley That’s one of the many joys of Heather’s substantive letters. They permit others to riff on her thoughts, which leads to a marvelous series of insights from a number of subscribers.
We re all learning!
I like that Daniel. Scalia, huh?
Ouch! This is harsh.
Thomas justifying machine guns, excuse me bump stocks on high capacity automatic rifles, is a craven and narrow minded view of reality in today's America. He's not helping us all to live better lives. Maybe he never was.
The groups that have already bought him have not been ones that help us better lives.
The depth of his apparent, legal stupidity suddenly becomes understandable when "gifts" come into play. He ties himself in knots trying to make plausible decisions based on either originalist claims or mangled reality. In his world, since automobiles didn't exist when the Constitution was composed, his originalist cell of a brain would infer that no law should be imposed upon owning one, nor licensure to drive it without training or testing, at any speed, with or without malice. And his bizarre, detailed explanation of firearm mechanisms to support his claim that a bump stock does not a machine gun make is the zenith of not seeing the forest for the trees. Has anyone queried him lately about the sun appearing to revolve around our planet? I fear his reply.
He’s making his stand in quicksand. Pure libertarianism. Every man for himself.
Same goes for antiabortion rulings that say you need to be actively dying to get abortion care.
I so want to screech at the "good old boys," An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Meaning all pregnancies begin with a man. If you are opposed to abortion, you alone are responsible for any conception, and no conception should occur without both parties in agreement.
And appropriate medical care should be available once conception occurs.
In addition, contraceptives and sex education should be free and widely available.
Technically, according the Thomas and the MAGAts, a woman is only eligible for an abortion AFTER either of several circumstances: 1. She has already delivered the child; 2. She has suffered a miscarriage and is currently serving time in jail for said offense; 3. Her rapist or incest attacker has adopted the child, or; 4. The woman is dead, having succumbed to sepsis, other related maladies arising out of the pregnancy or has committed suicide.
With that kind of thinking from Thomas and the magats, it strikes me that mandatory castration/vasectomy should be in effect for all males age 16 and older, unless they can prove that they would be caring toward the woman and any child born. IMHO that is no more extreme that what us women (those of childbearing age) are living with now.
Actually, most of these anti-humanity statutes exemplify the belief that women will deliver or die trying.
An obvious conclusion at this point, “a judicial whore, bought and paid for.”
It seems fair to say he is also a wounded justice, prepared to lash out at those who have exposed his corruption. It stings! But rather than reverse himself and reflect on right & wrong, he continues to offer bitter & sour rulings as a tarnished and illegitimate legal participant. His benefactors will protect him. We citizens will not see any semblance of justice from him.
To wit, we should expect nothing but immunity for a former president who is similarly wounded. They are, as DJT himself would say, “losers.”
He is a small, stupid, greedy, self-loathing, insecure man. Imagine having so little self-respect that he would let a billionaire use him by buying his mom’s house and providing private jets. No character whatsoever. Lacks all self-respect. A very disgusting little angry man.
Thomas doesn’t look for precedent, he looks for excuses. He’s a puppet who uses religion and his scary god as a shield to protect him from further bad press while he waits breathlessly for Nov. and his prayed for election results.
Like so many others right now, a victory for TFG assures them that all the bribes taken will be pardoned or buried and never come to the light of true justice.
I had a client from Australia who explained his country’s firearms laws as “We decided that our right not to be killed by gun violence was more important that people having the right to own guns”. He owned a rifle, for which he got a license because he lived in the country and had livestock. Too bad the US can’t come to the same sane conclusion.
If it weren't for the Republicans, I think we could. Actually, I love the quote made by your friend. Maybe I'll try to move down there, should (God help us!) Trump win in November.
I'm with you Dianne. We will have to move to a sane country. None of us will be safe if the "Right" wins in November. Don't Republicans ever lose relatives or friends to gun violence? They must think that a gun safe full of automatic weapons will save them from robbers and killers. Unless I was carrying a gun on my person, there would be no way to open the safe in time to protect myself or my family. I agree with Daniel Solomon. Only flintlock black powder rifles should be allowed.
Australia is a very interesting place, lots of good there. But unless you like heat and humidity, you might want to avoid Queensland… (except for trips out to the Great Barrier Reef.)
My mum (a WWII war bride) came from Perth, Western Australia, a beautiful city with fantastic weather. All of Australia is not the Outback, though that is pretty immense.
I've been to a lot of places in Australia, including Perth, but never the Outback. Perth will always remain in my memory as the place where got kicked off a cruise ship after the pandemic hit in 2020. One of the good things about Perth is that it has a very nice, comfortable airport. We had to spend quite a few hours there waiting for our scheduled flight.
Yes! Seems like I saw something like that on a T shirt.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Great quote. That explains to me why the republicans are so pro-NRA. They clearly love fraud…
Yep, Republicans are the party of fraud.
...let me correct that; republicans are the party of fraudsters, fornicators, felons, firearms fanatics and fascists.
Ha! Love the alliteration. Seems to been the thing lately to describe MAGA republicans as in Rep Crocketts's bleach blond, bad built beach body about MTG and Ty Cobb's petty, partisan, prima donna about Judge Cannon.
Thomas seems to forget that he wouldn’t be able to vote, let alone be a justice under his so-called originalist thinking. In fact there wouldn’t be a conservative majority since there are only four white men.
I thought the same thing: would his white christian nationalist buddies have a sympathetic jurist in Thomas if they argued that the 13th Amendment should be abolished because the founders permitted slavery?
This crowd of justices, we presently see, may bring slavery back? A Thomas vote for it?
Wasn’t there a Black Republican who recently argued that Blacks did ‘well’ under Jim Crow?
In North Carolina the black MAGA candidate for Governor thinks women shouldn’t have the vote.
Wow! That must go over like a lead balloon with the women! I hope you Americans get the vote out like never before this November. I’m going to be pacing the floor on my side of the 49th parallel.
❤️MAGA women don’t care, as long as the orange man wins. It’s crazy.
He is presently a Congressman in DC but hopes to become Trump’s VP!
Thomas is an unethical fool!
It seems that the right to bear arms should not apply to any gun technology not in effect at the time of our founding. About 2-3 rounds per minute should be the limit.
That would be *highly* reasonable, which means that *this* SCOTUS will *never* do it! Sad but true. Bigly.
Too bad SCOTUS, or at least the "conservative" members, are in the pocket of the NRA. That's just another way they are bought and paid for.
Definitely!
I've said this FOREVER. They want to be constitutionalists until it doesn't fit their narrative. Want to own a musket? Have at it, I have no problem with that.
It seems to me that back in the 1780s the idea of a right to arms, regardless of the well regulated militia hook, was based on 2 things that are not true today: 1) lots of people needed guns to put food on the table, and 2) there really wasn't a local police force in each town like we have today. They would never even have been able to imagine machine guns being necessary or the means to make an automatic rifle into a machine gun or large capacity magazines. The Supreme Court has dug itself into an illogical and irresponsible hole. Thomas, no surprise, is stuck the deepest in this hole. But no one said he was anything other than craven in his unerring instinct for the big money.
At the founding, only single-shot barrel-loading muskets were available. I’m for allowing each and every red-blooded American to have all those they wish. Also, the country had no army per se, and men could be called to serve—and needed to bring their rifles.
.... and also, people were oh so careful with their gun powder - conserving it for when truly needed.
Yes - and a good way to look at the second amendment is to see the PA & VA constitutions as they were the precursors to the second amendment.
Speaking of "holes," there are SIX of them among The Supremes.
I read Heller some years ago, and I don't agree that it was as broad as to wholly discount the well-regulated militia. The Court *could*, in my view, have either at the time or susequently confined its ruling to the facts of the case - that a federal officer who was required to have a weapon at all times could, despite the D.C. law forbidding all handguns (nobody really respects DC law, but whatevs), have a handgun at home. It was never necessary; and in fact it was destructive of the 2nd Amendment as written and intended, to extend the ruling to guns everywhere without exception.
It's like that football coach in Washington, who was in no way doing what the Supreme Court said he was doing-praying in private. He had the whole team out there on the 50-yard line with the fans on the stands, praying, and some if those players were there only because they were afraid if they didn't joining, they wouldn't get to play. And let's not talk about messages on wedding cakes that NOBODY ACTUALLY ORDERED from a person who didn't even make wedding cakes.
I criticize the Court for making up the facts, or accepting as fact a completely, blatantly false narrative, just to reach a preferred outcome.. That's not their job.
And for Neil Gorsuch to make the point about real cases...one chutzpadich guy
I am happily writing today about Biden’s recent polling results. Finally, a semblance of sanity seems to be settling upon some GOP voters. Biden has inched ahead of Trump in the 538 average poll results (which leans in favor of MAGA voters) and Biden’s leads in the NYTimes/Sienna Swing States poll by probably 3-4% when it’s adjusted for overweighting rural voters.
Won't the MAGA GOP be disappointed by 2026 when the courts start looking a lot different than the past 4 years. We can hope we get 2 SCOTUS appointments.
Now the GOP seems to be savaging itself in front of American voters. We have been asking ourselves for months how any sane American could possibly support Trump, the criminal, autocrat wannabe More and more dedicated GOP voters are realizing the danger to America is not Biden’s faux “senility” but Trump’s self-serving inhumanity. This is all very bad news for Trump and his advisors. Over the next few months, we’re likely to see intense efforts, using distorted data, to prove America loves Trump’s America 2025 agenda. And we just can’t wait to get Steven Miller as our new AG. I’m eagerly awaiting the debate. At best for Trump, it will be a draw, if and only if, Trump can remain civil for 90 minutes. The likelihood he will descend into one form of boorish, non-presidential behavior or another is much more likely. Biden will be fine, like his performance in the State of the Union. America needs to get used to the idea that their next president is old AND extremely competent to continue governing in a dangerously demanding world.
...let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Republicans are working overtime to throw the election their way, or start a civil war if the election doesn't swing their way.
Well, it seems like only men have commented, so let me pipe up and ask if this is a typo. "In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson says, “enough!” Women had few if any protections from domestic violence at the founding. Men could not, in the eyes of the law, rape their wives. There was no protection from physical assault by a husband, perpetrated by musket or otherwise. "
I believe men COULD rape their wives? I believe it was legal until the 1990s? I was married to a man who assured me it was true. We lived in Texas at the time, and it may very well STILL be legal in Texas.
I think she may have meant men couldn’t be convicted of raping their wives. And, yes that was true for a long, long, time and still may be true all over the world sadly.
Meaning that the law had no provision for using the word 'rape' as it applied to a husband's sex on demand. That's just his right to his property, you know. (Huge sarcasm.) I cringe at the renewed trope, "Women should be submissive to their husbands."
Wasn't that a Southern Baptist Church resolution?
She meant there was no such thing as rape if it was your wife. You could do what you wished with impunity.
That was her point I believe
The term is chattel. Owned by the husband, at his mercy until released or removed.
Beth, thanks for catching that. I was about to reply and clarify as well.
Thanks for asking for that clarification. I believe you are correct.
Paul Butler's position reminds me of how I initiated Change For The Better with my then-wife's kids from a previous marriage. They had "grown like weeds" and were in need of some direction. So, whenever they did the slightest thing right, they got praised for it and rewarded. It took about six months for a 180-degree attitude change, which they have maintained since that I hear about them.
Excellent tactic!
Same principle as used in training dogs. And also cats, if your cat deigns to accept it.
My cat trained me.
Ah, positive reinforcement! I've told elsewhere the story of my Ed Psych professor back in the day when behaviorism was all psych was about. He lectured from a podium in the center of the front of the room. So we decided to experiment. The window side of the class in the front couple of rows paid rapt attention. Took notes, nodded at everything he said, etc. The other side of the class read the Daily, yawned a lot, rolled their eyes, etc. After a few weeks--it wasn't many, he was lecturing entirely from near the windows.
No idea whether he saw what we were up to. But boy, were we all convinced how well positive reinforcement worked. And I've used it ever since.
I love this, Susan. B.F. Skinner was always correct! I use this same method on my cats and chickens. They are easily trained with positive reinforcement. People are no different than our pets, as witnessed by the former president's constant malicious hate rhetoric. His MAGA tagalongs give him all of the positive accolades he needs.
It seems readily apparent that aside from mentally ill people the maga crowd are also armed and dangerous
Those of us who believe in the rule of law are not heavily armed, and in some cases not at all. We may be in for trouble ahead.
There are plenty of weapons in my kitchen, in the tool shed, the garage, next to the fireplace, -- well, you get the drift. The trouble comes from voters who don't realize that they will have their free choice taken away by Trump, should he win. Not even the Supreme Court's opinions can stop anti-democratic forces from destroying democracy at will.
The thing is, too many MAGAt women believe they are at the disposal of their husbands...a misunderstood biblical context. If he turns out to be unreasonable and abusive, well, that's the luck of the draw.
Although this victim was not his wife, Trump has proven that he's abusive, and disrespects women. Ask E. Jean Carroll.
Lin, the trouble with your weapons (which are just like mine), is that they are like bringing water balloons to a duel with machine guns… I wish there was some way to get the magats out from under trump's spell.
Yup. We are an unarmed militia. We are in trouble.
For now the civil war is being waged in the courts, Congress, state and local governing bodies, and school boards.
The concept of civic duty is being replaced by those with only narrow self serving agendas. They ignore
the simple idea of cooperation and the inclusion of everyone. We need to step up and slap them down.. hard
Thanks Joyce❣️
“The truth is this: the Founding Fathers would not have wanted the country to live like this. Their muskets weren’t so sacred to them that they would have sacrificed our children to them. They didn’t pass the Second Amendment so parents could get shot in our streets on the 4th of July. The Second Amendment’s well-regulated militia wasn’t supposed to be shooting at us!”
Love this quote by Joyce!
Will "common sense" be the new Roberts doctrine? Let's hope so. Also, "As Justice Gorsuch correctly notes in his concurrence, 'Article III of the Constitution vests in this Court the power to decide only the ‘actual cas[e]’ before us, ‘not abstractions.’ Let’s hope he feels the same way in the presidential immunity case." I'm with you all the way on that one, but his questions in the April 25 oral argument of the immunity case didn't sound like it. Maybe he has learned something since then.
"Common sense"...well, one wonders where "common sense" disappeared to in the recent *Cargill* "bump-stock" ruling? I mean, a bump-stock-modified rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle
is a "machine gun" in all but name, and "common sense" alone would demand prohibition of such modifications without any dissent. But no, the far-right majority followed Clarence Thomas and his bogus animations into the black hole of 2nd Amendment challenges and waved through another weapon of mass destruction applied against one's fellow citizens in the name of "freedom".
Would it be possible to challenge the SCOTUS originalists directly by filing a suit against Thomas, (though unfortunately Jackson), for marrying non-African Americans to further illustrate their hypocrisy? At the country's founding Blacks could not vote, nor could they legally marry whites until 1967 after the Loving case. This reminds me of the furor that Ted Cruz knee-jerk reacted to when another lawmaker proposed a law that would require men to have vasectomies after 2 children, before he realized he'd been had.
I don't think Justice Jackson is a hypocrite. I have yet to hear her voice anything that would mark her as such.
I didn't mean to imply that Justice Jackson was a hypocrite. On the contrary!
Glad to hear that. We agree. In retrospect I'm sure your comment was about her being married to a white man.
My comment was about Justice Jackson being married to a white man and consequently if such a suit were brought that would also shine a light on her as well as Justice Thomas, which might be distracting. From everything I've seen so far, I believe she's a fierce advocate of the rule of law and her opinions are sharp and well articulated.
I hadn't really thought about Justice Jackson being brought down by comparison with Clarence Thomas, even though the only thing they have in common is being married to a white person. Because of how the republicans are, I am sure that they would come up with a negative comparison. I see Justice Jackson the same as you do.
Impressive Piece, well done, thank you !
Originalists keep leaving out the elephant in their room - that the Founders hoped what they had created was sufficient for that time and place, that their work was not and could not be assumed final for all time, and so that time and circumstance might require alterations to their blueprint. Had they meant their version of the Constitution to be etched in stone, they never would have included a way to amend it.