Does Justice Thomas really interpret the First Amendment

[question everything]

as each state can have its own religion, the way Senator Schumer said yesterday to Jon Stewart? That one can have the Baptist State of New York, the Methodist State of Connecticut and the Catholic State of New Jersey, as examples?

[UTUSN]

1. Justice THOMAS Doesn't "Interpret" Shit, Doesn't KNOW Shit,

doesn't RESPECT shit.

[question everything]

2. Yes, that's a given. Still wonder whether Schumer came

with this tidbit.

[pretzel4gore]

3. gonna take thomas '43 years to get even'

with america (thomas was 43 at time of his confirmation) as documented in the mayer, abramson book 'strange justice' published in 1994.....
the fact thomas is black has allowed the nazipoos to use the old porno mad pervert to get away with stating outright his loathing of the very society he's on sup court of!

[Erika]

4. Thomas is no legal scholar according to top lawyers

He was your token GOP black. They confirmed him based on his skin color rather than his legal skills which were severely lacking. Once again, the democrats let the Republicans have their pick.
Even at the cost to Anita Hill.

Thomas will never be seen as anything different. His opinions are poorly written as are his legal arguments. Even the Republicans realize this.

[question everything]

8. A perfect match of Bush, then (nt)

[Richard Steele]

5. Thomas believes the "establishment clause" is not applicable...

...to states, only to the Federal gov.
It's actually the 14th amemdment he disagrees with;
it made the states fall in line with all the other amendments.

And, YES, if Thomas had his way, states would be able to do that.
Here's some commentary on his arguements in the case of
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW :

http://www.willamette.edu/~blong/LegalEssays/Thomas.html
SNIP>
Thomas' second point is an arcane one, even for many lawyers.
In my judgment it ultimately has no merit,
but it has a superficial appeal.
Thomas argued that when the First Amendment religion provisions
became "incorporated" by the Supreme Court
into the Fourteenth Amendment
(that is, became obligatory not simply upon Congress
but also on the States) during the 1940s,
the Court made a mistake.
The Establishment Clause only really was intended to relate to
Congress' not establishing a religion;
it had nothing to do, in fact, with state establishments.
Thomas doensn't note it here, as he does elsewhere,
but several states had an established church long after
the First Amendment was adopted
(MA, for example, was not fully disestablished until 1833),
and so, the argument goes, the First Amendment couldn't have referred
to state establishments. Thus, according to Thomas,
since the CA state law requiring patriotic observances
in each school district is the result of state action,
the US Supreme Court, interpreting here only the federal constitution,
has no authority to deal with the question.
The states are supreme in this instance.
As Thomas says, "the text and history of the Establishment Clause
strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision
intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state
establishments."

[question everything]

9. Fascinating. Thanks (nt)

[DefenseLawyer]

6. A specific case

is Cutter v. Wilkinson, about restricting religious practices of prison inmates. Thomas believes that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not erect a wall of separation between church and state, but rather was simply designed to prevent Congress from interfering in state establishments of religion. Here is a quote from his concurring opinion:
"Even when enacting laws that bind the States pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion. It need only refrain from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion. For example, Congress presumably could not require a State to establish a religion any more than it could preclude a State from establishing a religion."

So yeah, that is what Justice Pubic Hair really thinks.

[question everything]

7. Thank you. And this is Bush "model" of a justice

At least Roberts does possess high intelligence, not that Bush would recognize one if it hit him in the face.

[Erika]

10. Again, Thomas was never known as a legal scholar

Attorneys base much on whether judges are scholars. He has never received that designation. He is not a legal intellectual. He is a token. The Republicans usage of blacks for their purposes will be enlightened. I think Colin Powell will be the first to blast them.