8 Best Quotes From Clarence Thomas’s Texas Abortion Dissent

8 Best Quotes From Clarence Thomas’s Texas Abortion Dissent

  1. “As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.”
  2. “The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.”

More…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder what would happen if everyone was required to read and understand these quotes from Justice Thomas?

The judicial branch has usurped the legislative authority from Congress. The executive branch has usurped power from Congress. In effect, one elected official with the power to appoint justices now rules. The question is simple: what good is Congress?

David DeGerolamo

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Domestic Enemies, Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to 8 Best Quotes From Clarence Thomas’s Texas Abortion Dissent

  1. Bob says:

    I’ve heard several researchers contend that the Supreme Court only has Constitutional jurisdiction over the Federal government and in DC; that it has no authority over the states. And, that we have allowed them to determine ‘Constitutionality’ for the states and We the People by not paying attention and by not understanding the limitations of their Constitutional mandate.

    • Average Joe says:

      Bob, it is my limited understanding that the non-ratified, but often utilized, 14th Amendment is the culprit in these decisions. Of course we know that was never the intent but the lack of testicular fortitude, or complicity if you prefer, on the part of Congress has allowed the court to garner power never intended and all to the detriment of liberty.

      Unless and until the people force Congress to exercise their proper authority OVER the courts we are doomed to the slow erosion of our rights and the protection afforded them under the Constitution.

      In the end, liberty is like a muscle, if it is not exercise it will atrophy.

  2. tom says:

    Don’t book any hunting trips to Texas judge those opinions are not popular in some corners of our corrupt republic. .

    Screw the Supremes, CONgress, & The Faux Muslimb emperor residing at 1600 Pennsylvania in the big white house with the “wall” around it. There is not a MF in that zone that represents me or the things I care about, not one. In fact I consider them to be criminal scum existing on the ignorance of the American populace. For example Mitchy McConnell managed to make $24 million dollars in 6 years on a salary of 193,000 per year. First off, $193k ain’t chump change and is far more than these criminal scum deserve. Second, the only way he made that kind of $$ was the old fashioned way, he stole it. People gave him $$ to control legislation to benefit them or hurt their competition. When will we learn? The political class in this country is in need of a bonfire.

  3. LT says:

    Tom -- you are exactly correct. Clarence Thomas has opened himself up to the oldest form of social control in existence -- the murder of outspoken dissenters, so as to muzzle, by fear and confusion, the body of dissent itself.

    But forgive me, if I observe that Thomas’s dissent doesn’t go nearly far enough.
    As I stated yesterday —

    The legitimate purposes of the United States Supreme Court, as defined in our Constitution, are as follows:
    The Judicial authority of the Supreme Court shall extend —
    1) to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
    2) to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls;
    3) to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
    4) to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
    5) to give Due Process to complaints of one State against another State, Pro-Forma, (as States also have lawful recourse to the Senate to settle differences, both by legislation, and/or proclamation);
    6) to make available Due Process to a Person/People of one State, who seek to initiate an action against another State (or a portion of the People thereof), where competent jurisdiction cannot be established in either State’s courts, or
    7) between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The Federal Government itself, has NO STANDING to initiate a case against any State, nor any Citizen of any State, outside the Authority of the Constitution, nor the Laws of the Unites States as passed by Congress, in accordance with said Constitution.
    Period. And if it did, such authority would rest with the Executive, not the Judicial branch, because it is the Presidents duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. NOT the Judiciary Branches option to “interpret” the law or action in question.

    Neither does the SCOTUS have legitimate authority, when the people of a State seek action against said State of which they are a Citizen (or resident), to any end or purpose whatsoever, because the State itself retains Competent Jurisdiction in such cases.

    And further, where the Constitution does not explicitly delegate a power to the Congress or the Executive branch of the Federal Government, neither does the Supreme Court of the Unites States have Jurisdiction over said matter, except within the explicit conditions of direct delegation to the Judiciary, as laid out above.

    Nowhere in the above enumerated powers of the Supreme Court, do I see anything even remotely congruent with “deciding the Constitutionality of any Law” made by the Congress of the Unites States, or of any State therein.

    Or, in other words, “Where the Constitution doesn’t delegate, the Supreme Court cannot Adjudicate.”

    This ‘supremacy clause’ and ‘commerce clause’ BS is exactly that — the bullsh*t source of an activist judiciary, which is in direct contravention to what our founders intended.

  4. HopeForChange says:

    Clarence Thomas, Scalia -- constitutional judges. This is just another reason why the arrogant, self-righteous RINOs need to suck it up and back Trump. His list of Supreme Court candidates was wonderful and that is even more important than who is named President for the next 4-8 years.

    • LT says:

      I must agree, H4C, Thomas and Scalia are the two men who have come *closest* to being true Constitutional judges in the last century… and also that Trump’s proposed list of new judges are, or appear at least, to be good choices, Constitutionally speaking.

      We can hope, at least, that Rude Vader and a few other activist judges on that panel will leave their posts in the next 4 to 8 years -- giving opportunity for a shift in the overall makeup of that body…if we get a Pres. who is inclined to make it happen…

Leave a Reply