Clarence Thomas: LIAR

[rosesaylavee]

I know, I know. We will probably be treated to hearing about Justice Thomas' book for at least the next week or so here. But just wanted to make it clear what a ass-kissing liar this man is.

In the article posted on CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml ) he states again and again how important the Constitution is to him. HA f**king HA. One of the quotes: "...But none of that had anything to do with what's in the Constitution. The point is simply this. The Constitution is what matters." Okay. Whatever.

This is one of his 'landmark' decisions and I think most of us here remember this one: Bush v Gore. I find the following site to be quite helpful in rekindling my anger over that NON-Constitutional decision: http://cronus.com/scotus/

An excerpt to get your blood pressure up for the day:

A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

more at link

Sheesh. Read the whole thing for ammunition to guard against the Repuke talking points that will follow this week.

edit to add link for CBS article

[rosesaylavee]

1. And here's more...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state? count under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.

Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.

[katmondoo]

3. why is he even writing this now.

He is going to open up a whole can of worms for good or bad I do not know. I doubt he comes out looking good, he was better quietly doing his Repuggy thing

[rosesaylavee]

4. Don't know. Guilt? Shame? Can't live with himself?

There is no justifying his partisan actions on the court.

[jojo54]

2. I can't stand hearing or seeing Thomas,

as badly as the idiot calling himself the "decider".

[blondeatlast]

5. That's a great read for the inevitable talking points.

K&R.

[gratuitous]

6. Oh, you poor simple liberals

It's right there in the Constitution: Paper ballots have a greater right to equal treatment under the law than the citizens do to have their votes counted accurately.

[Didereaux]

7. this says a lot about ol' Clarence...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/



....