Reply to Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Thomas is so extreme and crazy that he seems demented.

His Originalist interpretation should be tested.  Someone should take a case that he is not eligible to sit on the SCOTUS.  They can argue that when the Constitution was written and the SCOTUS was established, black men were slaves and were not eligible to sit on the bar, let alone be a judge.  So, by Originalist theory, Thomas is not eligible to sit on the SCOTUS.  Let him try to argue that.  But he's never been particularly consistent.  He votes for whatever his conservative financial owners want him to.  If not, it should be established that Originalism is not a valid way to rule on cases.

[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-dissent-domestic-violence-gun-ruling-originalism-2024-6[/url]

[quote]Clarence Thomas this week offered the lone dissent in a Supreme Court decision that ultimately ruled that people with a history of domestic violence can be prevented from legally owning guns.

His lengthy disagreement with the ruling in United States v. Rahimi hinged on an originalist interpretation of the law that Thomas, a staunch conservative, is known for.

Originalism is a legal framework based on interpreting constitutional law as it would've been understood at the time it was written nearly 250 years ago — before the invention of electric lighting, indoor plumbing, and steam-powered trains.

[...]

Legal experts who spoke with Business Insider said Thomas' latest decision highlighted how inconsistent and even ridiculous this method of interpretation could be.

"This is a case where, if you invalidate this statute on the basis of originalism, you go back in time and say, essentially, at the time of the original ratification of the Constitution, domestic violence was tolerated — and therefore, based on originalism, we need to invalidate the statute," John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who's also the director of the Public Defender Project, told BI. "And that is, of course, an absurd, horrible result."

Gross noted that originalism raises questions such as whether women should be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court, because the nation's founders wouldn't have allowed it then.

[...]

"A strict originalist view could be that we shouldn't have appointed women to the judiciary unless we get a formal amendment saying women can be judges," Gross said. "So that's the kind of logical extension of originalism that leads to these truly absurd results. In that context, it's very difficult to defend originalism as a useful, meaningful way of interpreting the Constitution."[/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics