Supreme Court Justice suprised people want their rights
I saw this interesting article at this blog.
The author links to this article, quoting the following:
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
“Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Another interesting part of the article:
“Sometimes, when I get a little down,” Justice Thomas said wearily, he goes online. “I look up wonderful speeches, like speeches by Douglas MacArthur, to hear him give without a note that speech at West Point — ‘duty, honor, country.’ How can you not hear those words and not feel strongly about what we have?”
So what consoles him is duty and country, and not something like freedom or liberty.
The author of the blog post then goes on to say:
Yes. There are simply too many people who want all the rights guaranteed to them under the US constitution. Stupid elitists. Rights which Clarence Thomas is supposed to protect.
I would like to add to that. Barack Obama knows about the stances of the Supreme Court Justices because it is the president who appoints them. But of course Justice Thomas is still there because he is not so fond of liberty, kind of like Obama.
Actually, Justice Clarence Thomas should brush up on his history. Another great bit from the article:
The questions from students were read to Justice Thomas, and the first one seemed to throw him off. “Since the Civil War, what has changed the way Americans view the Constitution the most and why?” an unidentified student asked.
Justice Thomas gave a rambling response, touching on the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights of freed slaves, the application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states and Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that endorsed the doctrine of “separate but equal.”
“I’m sure there are other things that have happened,” he said, wrapping up his answer. “So I would have to say just off the top of my head the Fourteenth Amendment. And I bet you someone’s going to hear that and say, well, no, it’s the dormant commerce clause or something.”
That was a curious aside. Few Americans could name the dormant commerce clause, and it has no obvious connection to how popular views of the Constitution changed after the Civil War.
I am liking Clarence Thomas less and less. One final point:
“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned.”
Now this really isn’t who we want in the Supreme Court. But I think Thomas will be there for a while. I don’t think we’ll see this kind of change from Obama.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: America, appoint, Barack Obama, blog, country, duty, freedom, government, honor, liberty, news, Obama, political, politics, president, Supreme Court, US Supreme Court, USA.