Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Clarence Thomas: 'State gun bans are clearly constitutional'   (msnbc.com) divider line 137
    More: Unlikely, Clarence Thomas, gun controls, Dahlia Lithwick, North Carolina Republicans, political subdivisions, Scalia, concurring opinions, establishment clause  
•       •       •

1960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 11:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 10:08:23 AM  
Thanks George Bush!
 
2014-05-06 10:16:44 AM  
When Scalia thinks you're going a bit too far to the right you might want to step back and reconsider your judicial positions.
 
2014-05-06 10:22:46 AM  
So he'd be totally cool with SC repealing the 13th amendment within its state borders as well?
 
2014-05-06 10:29:15 AM  
The fact that that man is on the bench of our highest court is one of the biggest shames in our history as a country.
 
2014-05-06 11:03:17 AM  
Subby: "I don't understand Clarence Thomas's positions"

No, Thomas thinks the  First Amendment doesn't apply to states. He thinks that because the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", which, you know, makes his opinion only  fairlynutty, not  100%nutty.

He not only thinks that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine, since he was part of the Majority in  McDonald v. Chicago which established that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but in his concurrence in that case he wrote that: "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause," which was an even more broad view of enforcing the Second Amendment right.

So, subby, RTFA sometime and actually pay attention to what it says.
 
2014-05-06 11:32:15 AM  

Rincewind53: Subby: "I don't understand Clarence Thomas's positions"

No, Thomas thinks the  First Amendment doesn't apply to states. He thinks that because the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", which, you know, makes his opinion only  fairlynutty, not  100%nutty.

He not only thinks that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine, since he was part of the Majority in  McDonald v. Chicago which established that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but in his concurrence in that case he wrote that: "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause," which was an even more broad view of enforcing the Second Amendment right.

So, subby, RTFA sometime and actually pay attention to what it says.


Meh - First Amendment or Second Amendment - really what's the difference?
 
2014-05-06 11:32:29 AM  
Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.
 
2014-05-06 11:33:26 AM  

vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.


No, subby's just a bad liar.
 
2014-05-06 11:33:28 AM  
No, the 2nd Amendment applies to the entire world, the rest of them are negotiable.
 
2014-05-06 11:33:50 AM  
I'm sure he's totally down with letting individual states make their own decision on the issue of slavery, too
 
2014-05-06 11:34:07 AM  
Does this mean I'm going to be forced to have state troopers quartered in my home during a time of peace?
 
2014-05-06 11:34:38 AM  

ginandbacon: The fact that that man is on the bench of our highest court is one of the biggest shames in our history as a country.


And he's only 65, he's got yeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrssssssss ahead of him ruining America.
 
2014-05-06 11:36:42 AM  
Well, ok. Let's apply that to the thirteenth amendment, Mr. Thomas. Your name is now Toby.
 
2014-05-06 11:37:16 AM  
Cool. Aslong as the ban applies to law enforcement too. Let's do it
 
2014-05-06 11:37:20 AM  

Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.


Except the article just replaces the 2nd with the 1st - Thomas' logic is the same and still bad.
 
2014-05-06 11:38:08 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Does this mean I'm going to be forced to have state troopers quartered in my home during a time of peace?


IIRC, there is a third amendment case working its way through regarding whether state and local police officers can take over and stay in your home when there's something else going on in the neighborhood that they want to keep an eye on.
 
2014-05-06 11:39:43 AM  
Now we have to find out if his wife took a lobbying job with the NRA
 
2014-05-06 11:40:11 AM  

vygramul: Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.

Except the article just replaces the 2nd with the 1st - Thomas' logic is the same and still bad.


.... No. Read what I wrote before. Thomas is 100% okay with applying the Second Amendment to the states, and thinks it not  only applies through the incorporation doctrine, but he'd go further and say that gun ownership is a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th as well.

His logic is  entirely different and his thoughts on whether the First Amendment applies to the states bear essentially zero connection to his thoughts on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

/just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.
 
2014-05-06 11:43:15 AM  

Rincewind53: Subby: "I don't understand Clarence Thomas's positions"

No, Thomas thinks the  First Amendment doesn't apply to states. He thinks that because the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", which, you know, makes his opinion only  fairlynutty, not  100%nutty.

He not only thinks that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine, since he was part of the Majority in  McDonald v. Chicago which established that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but in his concurrence in that case he wrote that: "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause," which was an even more broad view of enforcing the Second Amendment right.

So, subby, RTFA sometime and actually pay attention to what it says.


It says Thomas is a no account douchenozzle of the highest order that is so mentally deficient he can't even come up with a question when the court is in session.
 
2014-05-06 11:43:20 AM  

Headso: ginandbacon: The fact that that man is on the bench of our highest court is one of the biggest shames in our history as a country.

And he's only 65, he's got yeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrssssssss ahead of him ruining America.


I'm hoping he doesn't eat his fruits and vegetables.
 
2014-05-06 11:43:38 AM  
It's a question of who shall have the power.
 
2014-05-06 11:44:05 AM  
Just to play Devil's Advocate.....

When the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights drafted the U.S. had recently gone through a war where a remote all powerful government (British) were dictating everything to the colonies.  The States were worried that a similarly powerful Federal Government would also try dictating everything to the individual States rather than letting the States run themselves, thereby a good portion of the laws at the time was in setting up limits to the powers of the Federal Government and admitting the States should otherwise be able to run themselves...  So technically, since Thomas is supposed to be deciding "Constitutional or Unconstitutional" in his current job, he would be correct in reading in the original meaning was correct and the judges that decided otherwise in the past and expanded the federal governments powers were incorrect.

It doesn't change the way that the laws are currently interpreted granting the Federal Government the right to do whatever the fark they want, but that doesn't change the validity of his argument ;).
 
2014-05-06 11:44:19 AM  
inb4 Obama's SCOTUS goons are gonna take our guns away
 
2014-05-06 11:45:22 AM  

Rincewind53: His logic is entirely different and his thoughts on whether the First Amendment applies to the states bear essentially zero connection to his thoughts on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.


...based solely on the fact that the text says "Congress shall make no law..."

The problem in that logic is that you'd then have to ignore the incorporation of 14th. Is there some reason the 14th shouldn't have made the 1st binding to the states? Does the specification of "Congress" in the 1st make it impossible to apply the 14th to state legislatures (some of whom are also called "Congresses")?

Does Thomas know that precedent says he's wrong?

// or is the "precedent" merely that everyone assumes the 14th applies the 1st downstream, and Thomas is aching to prove us wrong?
 
2014-05-06 11:47:20 AM  

DarwiOdrade: Rincewind53: Subby: "I don't understand Clarence Thomas's positions"

No, Thomas thinks the  First Amendment doesn't apply to states. He thinks that because the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", which, you know, makes his opinion only  fairlynutty, not  100%nutty.

He not only thinks that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine, since he was part of the Majority in  McDonald v. Chicago which established that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but in his concurrence in that case he wrote that: "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause," which was an even more broad view of enforcing the Second Amendment right.

So, subby, RTFA sometime and actually pay attention to what it says.

Meh - First Amendment or Second Amendment - really what's the difference?


They're in the wrong order?
 
2014-05-06 11:47:30 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Does this mean I'm going to be forced to have state troopers quartered in my home during a time of peace?


Oblig
 
2014-05-06 11:47:51 AM  
The 1st Amendment instructs the US congress. The 2nd Amendment instructs the states and federal govts that they can't ban guns.
 
2014-05-06 11:49:20 AM  

buzzcut73: Wellon Dowd: Does this mean I'm going to be forced to have state troopers quartered in my home during a time of peace?

IIRC, there is a third amendment case working its way through regarding whether state and local police officers can take over and stay in your home when there's something else going on in the neighborhood that they want to keep an eye on.


Really? That might be interesting. If I recall correctly, the annotated US Code cites no cases related to the Third Amendment in the entire history of the nation.
 
2014-05-06 11:53:00 AM  

Rincewind53: vygramul: Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.

Except the article just replaces the 2nd with the 1st - Thomas' logic is the same and still bad.

.... No. Read what I wrote before. Thomas is 100% okay with applying the Second Amendment to the states, and thinks it not  only applies through the incorporation doctrine, but he'd go further and say that gun ownership is a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th as well.

His logic is  entirely different and his thoughts on whether the First Amendment applies to the states bear essentially zero connection to his thoughts on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

/just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.


It strikes me that his interpretation relies on an extremely narrow reading of the first.

The problem with strict constructionists is that they seem to give themselves more leeway in the interpretation when it suits their own views, but fall back on the 'it technically says this, my hands are tied' when it benefits them.
 
2014-05-06 11:53:29 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Really? That might be interesting. If I recall correctly, the annotated US Code cites no cases related to the Third Amendment in the entire history of the nation.


That's because dedicated activists work hard to protect our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

media.theonion.com
 
2014-05-06 11:55:04 AM  

vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.


He believes in 3/5ths of them?

\runs for it
 
2014-05-06 11:56:07 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I'm sure he's totally down with letting individual states make their own decision on the issue of slavery, too


You say that sarcastically, but I'm not 100% sure I know which way he'd jump on that one.
 
2014-05-06 11:58:03 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: When Scalia thinks you're going a bit too far to the right you might want to step back and reconsider your judicial positions.

start taking more bribes.

/I'm pretty sure Scalia is where he is on any opinion simply because he's cornered there by huge wads of donated cash
 
2014-05-06 11:59:35 AM  
Well, a Conservative said it, so it must be true.
 
2014-05-06 11:59:38 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Rincewind53: vygramul: Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.

Except the article just replaces the 2nd with the 1st - Thomas' logic is the same and still bad.

.... No. Read what I wrote before. Thomas is 100% okay with applying the Second Amendment to the states, and thinks it not  only applies through the incorporation doctrine, but he'd go further and say that gun ownership is a "privilege or immunity" under the 14th as well.

His logic is  entirely different and his thoughts on whether the First Amendment applies to the states bear essentially zero connection to his thoughts on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

/just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.

It strikes me that his interpretation relies on an extremely narrow reading of the first.

The problem with strict constructionists is that they seem to give themselves more leeway in the interpretation when it suits their own views, but fall back on the 'it technically says this, my hands are tied' when it benefits them.


On the contrary, when the Constitution was written, many states had official state religions. Massachusetts was officially Congregational until 1833. Connecticut was until 1818. South Carolina was officially Church of England until 1790. New Hampshire required every legislator to be Protestant. Etc.

Thomas' reading of the First appears to be correct, but antiquated - he's essentially arguing that at least some of the incorporation doctrine is wrong.
 
2014-05-06 11:59:42 AM  

ginandbacon: The fact that that man is on the bench of our highest court is one of the biggest shames in our history as a country.


F'in This.
 
2014-05-06 11:59:47 AM  

Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.


Slow your roll, champ.  Subby's not a liar, he's just not as well read as you.  He read the article to say that Thomas doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine, which is basically what it says.  If incorporation doesn't bind the states to the first amendment, why would it bind them to the second?  Until you showed up with the citation to McDonald, I thought that was a reasonable conclusion.
 
2014-05-06 12:02:11 PM  

tulax: If incorporation doesn't bind the states to the first amendment, why would it bind them to the second?


Because the First Amendment explicitly prevents  Congress from taking certain actions, while the Second Amendment simply says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed generally. It's not an unreasonable interpretation, particularly in light of the state religions at the time, to believe that the Founders were preventing establishment of a  National religion, but wanted to prevent seizure of weapons even at the state level.
 
2014-05-06 12:04:22 PM  
How about quoting the relevant parts of the concurance instead of quoting someone parphrasing the relevant parts of the concurance.
 
2014-05-06 12:13:17 PM  

Rincewind53: /just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.


At least part of his dissent implies, in dicta, that free speech may be incorporated:
The most cogent argument in favor of incorporation may be that, by the time of Reconstruction, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had come to reinterpret the Establishment Clause (notwithstanding its Federalist origins) as expressing an individual right. On this question, historical evidence from the 1860's is mixed. Congressmen who catalogued the personal rights protected by the First Amendment commonly referred to speech, press, petition, and assembly, but not to a personal right of nonestablishment; instead, they spoke only of " 'free exercise' " or " 'freedom of conscience.' " Amar 253, and 385, n. 91 (collecting sources). There may be reason to think these lists were abbreviated, and silence on the issue is not dispositive.
 
2014-05-06 12:14:28 PM  
Wow that's a pretty strict reading - I suppose that means that since only *Congress* is prohibited, then the President is constitutionally able to establish a national religion.
 
2014-05-06 12:15:03 PM  

tulax: Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.

Slow your roll, champ.  Subby's not a liar, he's just not as well read as you.  He read the article to say that Thomas doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine, which is basically what it says.  If incorporation doesn't bind the states to the first amendment, why would it bind them to the second?  Until you showed up with the citation to McDonald, I thought that was a reasonable conclusion.


It's more that people are willing to believe every stupid thing they read about Thomas in general.

Like, if you put in a headline "Clarence Thomas decides that all puppies in America should be murdered", there would be five comments into the thread about how Clarence Thomas is such an asshole.

It's like how Thomas's position that he doesn't think oral argument is necessary, since the written arguments should be enough to form an opinion on, and people spin that into "Clarence Thomas doesn't write opinions, he's too dumb to think up any questions, etc..."
 
2014-05-06 12:15:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: So he'd be totally cool with SC repealing the 13th amendment within its state borders as well?


As long as Thomas is treated like a pet instead of cattle, he would gladly go along with it.

I hate Clarence Thomas so much.
 
2014-05-06 12:15:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: /just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.

At least part of his dissent implies, in dicta, that free speech may be incorporated:
The most cogent argument in favor of incorporation may be that, by the time of Reconstruction, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had come to reinterpret the Establishment Clause (notwithstanding its Federalist origins) as expressing an individual right. On this question, historical evidence from the 1860's is mixed. Congressmen who catalogued the personal rights protected by the First Amendment commonly referred to speech, press, petition, and assembly, but not to a personal right of nonestablishment; instead, they spoke only of " 'free exercise' " or " 'freedom of conscience.' " Amar 253, and 385, n. 91 (collecting sources). There may be reason to think these lists were abbreviated, and silence on the issue is not dispositive.


That makes sense. I don't think even he would want to rock the boat that much on free speech issues.
 
2014-05-06 12:18:27 PM  

Morpher59: Wow that's a pretty strict reading - I suppose that means that since only *Congress* is prohibited, then the President is constitutionally able to establish a national religion.


Can you plz point to the section in Article II that gives the President power to establish a national religion? We'll wait.
 
2014-05-06 12:20:22 PM  

Rincewind53: It's like how Thomas's position that he doesn't think oral argument is necessary, since the written arguments should be enough to form an opinion on, and people spin that into "Clarence Thomas doesn't write opinions, he's too dumb to think up any questions, etc..."


Nah, that's just being a dick. Normally, if the Justices encounter any ambiguity in the brief, they'll ask questions to clarify - Thomas takes a default position of "it's not  my job to make sure you're clear, so I'll just interpret it how I want to and fark you."
 
2014-05-06 12:20:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: So he'd be totally cool with SC repealing the 13th amendment within its state borders as well?


Does the 13th amendment contain an exception to the states like the 1st does?

Anyway, I wish Thomas would apply this plain-reading literalism to increase liberty instead of limiting it.
 
2014-05-06 12:20:52 PM  

Theaetetus: Morpher59: Wow that's a pretty strict reading - I suppose that means that since only *Congress* is prohibited, then the President is constitutionally able to establish a national religion.

Can you plz point to the section in Article II that gives the President power to establish a national religion? We'll wait.



It's right next to the part that says the First Amendment only refers to Christianity.
 
2014-05-06 12:21:26 PM  

Theaetetus: TuteTibiImperes: Rincewind53: vygramul: Rincewind53: vygramul: Apparently, Thomas thinks that any amendment after 10 are somehow not equal.

No, subby's just a bad liar.

Except the article just replaces the 2nd with the 1st - Thomas' logic is the same and still bad.

....

On the contrary, when the Constitution was written, many states had official state religions. Massachusetts was officially Congregational until 1833. Connecticut was until 1818. South Carolina was officially Church of England until 1790. New Hampshire required every legislator to be Protestant. Etc.

Thomas' reading of the First appears to be correct, but antiquated - he's essentially arguing that at least some of the incorporation doctrine is wrong.


Curious, what would be the function of a 'state religion' under the current system of laws (equal protection)? Could a state still meaningfully distinguish followers and non-followers with regards to election requirements or rights/services? I take it from the Galloway decision that a state religion would be mostly symbolic.
 
2014-05-06 12:21:50 PM  

Rincewind53: Theaetetus: Rincewind53: /just to clarify, when I say "First Amendment" here, I'm mainly talking about Thomas on Establishment Clause stuff, not the rest of the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure of his position on incorporation and, say, free speech. I don't want to imply something that may not be true about his view on those aspects of the First.

At least part of his dissent implies, in dicta, that free speech may be incorporated:
The most cogent argument in favor of incorporation may be that, by the time of Reconstruction, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had come to reinterpret the Establishment Clause (notwithstanding its Federalist origins) as expressing an individual right. On this question, historical evidence from the 1860's is mixed. Congressmen who catalogued the personal rights protected by the First Amendment commonly referred to speech, press, petition, and assembly, but not to a personal right of nonestablishment; instead, they spoke only of " 'free exercise' " or " 'freedom of conscience.' " Amar 253, and 385, n. 91 (collecting sources). There may be reason to think these lists were abbreviated, and silence on the issue is not dispositive.

That makes sense. I don't think even he would want to rock the boat that much on free speech issues.


I don't know.  His extremely narrow view in cases of student speech and the like seem to indicate that he would probably favor such an interpretation if it came up.  At the very least, the burden he feels a state government must show in order to justify restricting speech, even on content or viewpoint grounds, would likely be extremely low.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report