ADVERTISEMENT

Clarence Thomas Ruffles Liberal Feathers Again

Aug 23, 2013
1,275
201
63
Mt. Juliet, TN
Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues states may establish an official state religion, and sees no problem with an individual state making Christianity the...
www.patheos.com

Now correct me if I am mistaken...wasn't it once legal for states to establish a specific religion as its official state religion? I believe the ratification of the 14th Amendment changed that. Once again correct me if needed.
 
That's what we need. The establishment of a state religion. All of the problems and issues, crumbling infrastructure, budget shortfalls and on and on, the establishment of a state religion will really make the difference. Maybe snake-handling for Tennessee huh?

Clarence Thomas may well be the worst Justice ever appointed to the Supreme Court. And he's running neck and neck with Alito, who thinks Citizens United is a great ruling. This opinion, which I have common sense reservations about, shouldn't see the light of day and is a relatively worthless nod the the grating and annoying Christian right who seemingly think their beliefs are somehow being persecuted on a daily basis. LOL.

Can we decide on which religion, you know, maybe Buddism for New Mexico or how about Hinduism for Minnesota? Sure, it'll piss the squarehead Lutherans off, but hey, we need to have some diversity in our state religions, don't we? Or are we just rubber stamping a one-size-fits Christianity for everyone?
 
That's what we need. The establishment of a state religion. All of the problems and issues, crumbling infrastructure, budget shortfalls and on and on, the establishment of a state religion will really make the difference. Maybe snake-handling for Tennessee huh?

Clarence Thomas may well be the worst Justice ever appointed to the Supreme Court. And he's running neck and neck with Alito, who thinks Citizens United is a great ruling. This opinion, which I have common sense reservations about, shouldn't see the light of day and is a relatively worthless nod the the grating and annoying Christian right who seemingly think their beliefs are somehow being persecuted on a daily basis. LOL.

Can we decide on which religion, you know, maybe Buddism for New Mexico or how about Hinduism for Minnesota? Sure, it'll piss the squarehead Lutherans off, but hey, we need to have some diversity in our state religions, don't we? Or are we just rubber stamping a one-size-fits Christianity for everyone?

The god botherers would crap holy bricks if some state made a non christian religion the official religion.
 
Thankfully even most conservative justices wouldn't side with Clarence on this one and there is no way in hell his view will ever become a majority opinion on the Supreme Court.

And yes, it used to be legal before the Fourteenth Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was incorporated in Everson v Board of Education in 1947.

This is the same for all other rights in the US Constitution. Prior to the Fourteenth, the states were not bound by any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Over time pretty much all of them have been incorporated.
 
Serious questions:

1. What would the punishment be if you don't worship the correct god or attend the approved services...?

2. What would happen to the "wrong" churches and synagogues and the misguided clergy of those faiths?

3. Would we see a return of blue laws, an enforced sabbath, blasphemy laws...? Would we see resort to Old Testament punishments?

4. As I understand it, some states have actually passed laws against Sharia law. Would that apply to Christian versions?
 
Serious questions:

1. What would the punishment be if you don't worship the correct god or attend the approved services...?

2. What would happen to the "wrong" churches and synagogues and the misguided clergy of those faiths?

3. Would we see a return of blue laws, an enforced sabbath, blasphemy laws...? Would we see resort to Old Testament punishments?

4. As I understand it, some states have actually passed laws against Sharia law. Would that apply to Christian versions?

Well you know as any old conservative would say, if the voters want these things through their elected representatives, it's all good.
 
Thankfully even most conservative justices wouldn't side with Clarence on this one and there is no way in hell his view will ever become a majority opinion on the Supreme Court.

And yes, it used to be legal before the Fourteenth Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was incorporated in Everson v Board of Education in 1947.

This is the same for all other rights in the US Constitution. Prior to the Fourteenth, the states were not bound by any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Over time pretty much all of them have been incorporated.

Welcome back.
 
I'm beginning to think Justice Thomas skipped a lot of law school classes. And has never actually read the Constitution or the Amendments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I assumed the posters here were bright enough to catch the point. Apparently I was too generous.

You incorrectly assumed a large proportion of posters claim racism when there isn't any. I mean, unless you think a large proportion is less than 3. I don't. But to each there own. I have no idea how the math classes were in Mo. Valley several decades ago.
 
You incorrectly assumed a large proportion of posters claim racism when there isn't any. I mean, unless you think a large proportion is less than 3. I don't. But to each there own. I have no idea how the math classes were in Mo. Valley several decades ago.

Yeah, and I expected it from a lot of posters, my response was specifically because it came from LC.
 
I'm beginning to think Justice Thomas skipped a lot of law school classes. And has never actually read the Constitution or the Amendments.

I'd like for you to expand on this. Are you saying that the Constitution/BOR did specifically decide this issue?

I haven't looked in to anything regarding the Article as linked, but it specifically states, "Thomas believes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states." Do you believe that the First Amendment, itself, provides otherwise?

Hell, you make this seem inconceivable, presumably because of the 14th, but even then it isn't concrete: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It isn't like the 14th specifically incorporated the BOR, or any specific rights themselves. Courts have done it, sure, doesn't make any argument against wrong, or inconceivable.

Look, I think States should not be allowed to have a state-mandated/official religion. But I also understand how law-making works, and what I want doesn't matter.
 
Yeah, and I expected it from a lot of posters, my response was specifically because it came from LC.
1. I cooked the shrimp on the panini grill. They were very good.

2. Excuse me for offending anyone. It's just that Thomas' views on original intent are hardly shocking news. Nor are they any wackier than some advanced by liberals on the court. And the hatred and contempt for the man among liberals never seems to abate.

3. Do I think the HROT posters are racists? I think probably not. But a lot of the animosity toward Thomas from the Left is unquestionably due to his being that thing so many liberals hate and fear: A minority who doesn't think the way they believe he should. So I figured that if every criticism of Obama, Holder, et al, can be met with a charge of racism, I'd give it a try.
 
1. I cooked the shrimp on the panini grill. They were very good.

2. Excuse me for offending anyone. It's just that Thomas' views on original intent are hardly shocking news. Nor are they any wackier than some advanced by liberals on the court. And the hatred and contempt for the man among liberals never seems to abate.

3. Do I think the HROT posters are racists? I think probably not. But a lot of the animosity toward Thomas from the Left is unquestionably due to his being that thing so many liberals hate and fear: A minority who doesn't think the way they believe he should. So I figured that if every criticism of Obama, Holder, et al, can be met with a charge of racism, I'd give it a try.

Let me speak on my behalf, mostly in attempt to separate myself from the loons:

1. Weird, ok.

2. I agree. I don't agree with, well, anything CT believes or rules, or that he even has much of an opinion of his own. To me he is a parrot. I care not that he is a minority, hell the Court is full of "minorities"...well except for the rich/white part. I inherently disagree with his approach to the Constitution, but I respect that it isn't simply an OiT rambling of nonsense. I hope his retirement is soon, and I don't care who replaces him, or how they align politically. I like my Justices to put original, personal thought into their decisions.
 
1. I cooked the shrimp on the panini grill. They were very good.

2. Excuse me for offending anyone. It's just that Thomas' views on original intent are hardly shocking news. Nor are they any wackier than some advanced by liberals on the court. And the hatred and contempt for the man among liberals never seems to abate.

3. Do I think the HROT posters are racists? I think probably not. But a lot of the animosity toward Thomas from the Left is unquestionably due to his being that thing so many liberals hate and fear: A minority who doesn't think the way they believe he should. So I figured that if every criticism of Obama, Holder, et al, can be met with a charge of racism, I'd give it a try.
1. Good choice. Tonight I made a Caribbean jerk chicken (allspice is your friend) with homemade chutney, cornbread, and a 'hash' of home grown sweet potatoes, black beans, corn, and a dressing of lime juice, molasses, chipotle in adobo sauce. Added a brown rice dish simmered with apples, onions, and plantains.

2. No offense taken. My personal hatred for Thomas has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin. A Caucasian with his attitudes and beliefs deserves just as much hatred. I'm not sure he has contributed anything positive to society.

3. See number 2.
 
Last edited:
I'd like for you to expand on this. Are you saying that the Constitution/BOR did specifically decide this issue?

I haven't looked in to anything regarding the Article as linked, but it specifically states, "Thomas believes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states." Do you believe that the First Amendment, itself, provides otherwise?

Hell, you make this seem inconceivable, presumably because of the 14th, but even then it isn't concrete: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It isn't like the 14th specifically incorporated the BOR, or any specific rights themselves. Courts have done it, sure, doesn't make any argument against wrong, or inconceivable.

Look, I think States should not be allowed to have a state-mandated/official religion. But I also understand how law-making works, and what I want doesn't matter.
So does that apply to all those potential lives that were ended in some butcher shop clinic that would rival Mengele's Auschwitz house of horrors?
 
So does that apply to all those potential lives that were ended in some butcher shop clinic that would rival Mengele's Auschwitz house of horrors?

Huh?

Are you really wanting to take this thread in the Abortion direction? Make another thread, I'll be happy to post.
 
Let me speak on my behalf, mostly in attempt to separate myself from the loons:

1. Weird, ok.

2. I agree. I don't agree with, well, anything CT believes or rules, or that he even has much of an opinion of his own. To me he is a parrot. I care not that he is a minority, hell the Court is full of "minorities"...well except for the rich/white part. I inherently disagree with his approach to the Constitution, but I respect that it isn't simply an OiT rambling of nonsense. I hope his retirement is soon, and I don't care who replaces him, or how they align politically. I like my Justices to put original, personal thought into their decisions.
LOL. The 2nd paragraph is full of batsh*t craziness. Of course, I doubt Thomas stays up at night worrying because a internet nobody, who isn't even a lawyer (let alone a constitutional one), disagree with his rulings. A parrot? You must not know what a parrot is. Thurgood Marshall was a parrot, Thomas is not a parrot. He's been the leader in trying to bring the originalist philosophy the main one with the court. He's led the charge on trying to reign back the court in broad use of the commerce clause to allow the gov't to do whatever the hell it wants. He's led the charge against reverse racial discrimination. He's led the charge against the gov't abuse of imminent domain.

After reading your rambling, non-coherent responses (not to mention flat out lies for which you never apologized) on the gay marriage issue, it's little wonder you'd go off the rails with Thomas. Here's a snippet from a Jeffrey Toobin's 2011 article which disputes what you contend. Just so you think I'm not being unfair. Toobin is a loony lefty. He's so far left he makes you look like a Goldwater Republican in comparison. He doesn't even agree with Thomas on his rulings but he'd say balderdash to everything you've written about him.. Oh, and this was in the New Yorker, hardly some bastion of extremist right wing thought.

"These tempests obscure a larger truth about Thomas: that this year has also been, for him, a moment of triumph. In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/29/partners-jeffrey-toobin
 
Huh?

Are you really wanting to take this thread in the Abortion direction? Make another thread, I'll be happy to post.
Well since I started the thread I thought I would take it in another direction...besides it has been my experience in my short time here that most threads end up being hijacked any how.
 
LOL. The 2nd paragraph is full of batsh*t craziness. Of course, I doubt Thomas stays up at night worrying because a internet nobody, who isn't even a lawyer (let alone a constitutional one), disagree with his rulings. A parrot? You must not know what a parrot is. Thurgood Marshall was a parrot, Thomas is not a parrot. He's been the leader in trying to bring the originalist philosophy the main one with the court. He's led the charge on trying to reign back the court in broad use of the commerce clause to allow the gov't to do whatever the hell it wants. He's led the charge against reverse racial discrimination. He's led the charge against the gov't abuse of imminent domain.

After reading your rambling, non-coherent responses (not to mention flat out lies for which you never apologized) on the gay marriage issue, it's little wonder you'd go off the rails with Thomas. Here's a snippet from a Jeffrey Toobin's 2011 article which disputes what you contend. Just so you think I'm not being unfair. Toobin is a loony lefty. He's so far left he makes you look like a Goldwater Republican in comparison. He doesn't even agree with Thomas on his rulings but he'd say balderdash to everything you've written about him.. Oh, and this was in the New Yorker, hardly some bastion of extremist right wing thought.

"These tempests obscure a larger truth about Thomas: that this year has also been, for him, a moment of triumph. In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/29/partners-jeffrey-toobin

Good grief. Justice Marshall a parrot? You lose credibility with that statement. You may not agree with some of his rulings, but he was far from a parrot. He was absolutely on the leading edge of First Amendment law, not to mention his work for the NAACP.

And while I strongly disagree with a number of Justice Thomas' rulings, he has a clearly defined view of constitutional law, and he seldom strays from it.

With only few exceptions, nobody makes it to the Supreme Court in the modern era without being smart. Justice Thomas is not one of the exceptions.
 
I'd like for you to expand on this. Are you saying that the Constitution/BOR did specifically decide this issue?

I haven't looked in to anything regarding the Article as linked, but it specifically states, "Thomas believes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states." Do you believe that the First Amendment, itself, provides otherwise?

Hell, you make this seem inconceivable, presumably because of the 14th, but even then it isn't concrete: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It isn't like the 14th specifically incorporated the BOR, or any specific rights themselves. Courts have done it, sure, doesn't make any argument against wrong, or inconceivable.

Look, I think States should not be allowed to have a state-mandated/official religion. But I also understand how law-making works, and what I want doesn't matter.

Yes, I think this is well covered by the Establisment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Supremacy Clause of Article 6. It's absurd that anyone who has spent any amount of time supposedly studying the Constitution would come to the conclusion that Justice Thomas has come to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Yes, I think this is well covered by the Establisment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Supremacy Clause of Article 6. It's absurd that anyone who has spent any amount of time supposedly studying the Constitution would come to the conclusion that Justice Thomas has come to.

You mean like when the Supreme Court (not to mention founders previously) specifically ruled the Constitution only applied to the Feds?

What, pray tell, were they studying in your opinion?

Also, can you do one thin for me?

Post the first two words of the First Amendment.
 
Funny that Phantom is here calling me the liar, when he specifically fled the thread where I demonstrably proved him to be the liar. He disappeared for a while after that. Still hasn't responded, and we all know why.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT