• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CLARENCE THOMAS: 'We are destroying our institutions'... DC 'broken'...

MickeyW

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Justice Clarence Thomas had strong words for the current state of American government during an appearance at the Heritage Foundation to celebrate his 25 years on the Supreme Court. “At some point, we are going to have to recognize that we are destroying our institutions,” he said, acknowledging that the Court might also partially be at fault. C-SPAN

Justice Clarence Thomas: ‘We are destroying our institutions’ | McClatchy DC
 
MickeyW said:
“At some point, we are going to have to recognize that we are destroying our institutions,”
Click to expand...

So he's having regrets over Citizens United? Interesting.
 
Geoist said:
So he's having regrets over Citizens United? Interesting.
Click to expand...

I doubt that is what he is referencing ...

What you should be cuing in on, are all the positives in his comments. ;)
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
Justice Clarence Thomas had strong words for the current state of American government during an appearance at the Heritage Foundation to celebrate his 25 years on the Supreme Court. “At some point, we are going to have to recognize that we are destroying our institutions,” he said, acknowledging that the Court might also partially be at fault. C-SPAN

Justice Clarence Thomas: ‘We are destroying our institutions’ | McClatchy DC
Click to expand...

This is one time I think Thomas is right.... at least in a broad sense. And the biggest institution we are destroying is the family unit because of our economic policies and disregard for the health and education of children. We are destroying public education..... we are destroying our very system of government through things like polarization due to gerrymandering .... we are destroying our shared culture with polarization of news sources and a breakdown in shared entertainment experiences.
 
WTH!

"Some Senate Republicans have suggested that if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, they will continue to block any nominees she puts forth. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said earlier this month that Republicans in the chamber would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said Wednesday that “there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices.”

“Just recently Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job,” Cruz told reporters. “That’s a debate that we are going to have.”"
 
haymarket said:
This is one time I think Thomas is right.... at least in a broad sense. And the biggest institution we are destroying is the family unit because of our economic policies and disregard for the health and education of children. We are destroying public education..... we are destroying our very system of government through things like polarization due to gerrymandering .... we are destroying our shared culture with polarization of news sources and a breakdown in shared entertainment experiences.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but w/o specifics, I can't fully agree.

Chomsky said:
WTH!

"Some Senate Republicans have suggested that if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, they will continue to block any nominees she puts forth. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said earlier this month that Republicans in the chamber would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said Wednesday that “there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices.”

“Just recently Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job,” Cruz told reporters. “That’s a debate that we are going to have.”"
Click to expand...

I'm all for that. Stop the crooked, evil bitch, at any costs! The very Best way, is to Vote Trump!
 
MickeyW said:
<snip>



I'm all for that. Stop the crooked, evil bitch, at any costs! The very Best way, is to Vote Trump!
Click to expand...
B.S.

They're abrogating their responsibility, placing partisan politics above governance.
 
MickeyW said:
I'm all for that. Stop the crooked, evil bitch, at any costs! The very Best way, is to Vote Trump!
Click to expand...

Yeah, trade in one set of problems for a whole new set. That'll show 'em! :lol:
 
Chomsky said:
B.S.

They're abrogating their responsibility, placing partisan politics above governance.
Click to expand...

They being the entire DC ELITE CLASS, for a long time now.

Its time to roll some heads.

*NOTE TO MODS:The above line is a figure of speech, it is not intended to be a call for violence*
 
TurtleDude said:
17 years later-the BS meter is overloading

sounds like a useful fool willing to help the cause by such nonsense
Click to expand...



ohhh, i see. so if it happened 16 years ago, then it's a story, right?
pfft!
 
madman said:
ohhh, i see. so if it happened 16 years ago, then it's a story, right?
pfft!
Click to expand...

sounds like BS to me for someone to sit on this for 17 years. Do you know why most crimes have a statute of limitations? BTW Anita Hill was a lying twit and another useful fool. She was a twit in law school and tried to prevent the Yale Political Union from even debating affirmative action's validity at Yale. She was an EEOC office lawyer and claimed she didn't know she had been harassed by Justice Thomas when he worked for the EEOC. That's like a dermatologist claiming he didn't know that blue mole on his shin was the sign of melanoma
 
MickeyW said:
I'm all for that. Stop the crooked, evil bitch, at any costs! The very Best way, is to Vote Trump!
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... You are complaining about how Washington is "broken" but you promote actions that make Washington broken and inefficient. :doh
 
madman said:
rut ro!!

Young Scholar, Now Lawyer, Says Clarence Thomas Groped Her in 1999 | National Law Journal
Click to expand...

Get real.

Chomsky said:
B.S.

They're abrogating their responsibility, placing partisan politics above governance.
Click to expand...

Stopping a demon like hillary is a Great Resposnsibility....Yes!

Geoist said:
Yeah, trade in one set of problems for a whole new set. That'll show 'em! :lol:
Click to expand...

What whole new set would that be....something out of the dark recesses of a liberal mind?

madman said:
ohhh, i see. so if it happened 16 years ago, then it's a story, right?
pfft!
Click to expand...

Only if it's Bill Clinton.

TurtleDude said:
sounds like BS to me for someone to sit on this for 17 years. Do you know why most crimes have a statute of limitations? BTW Anita Hill was a lying twit and another useful fool. She was a twit in law school and tried to prevent the Yale Political Union from even debating affirmative action's validity at Yale. She was an EEOC office lawyer and claimed she didn't know she had been harassed by Justice Thomas when he worked for the EEOC. That's like a dermatologist claiming he didn't know that blue mole on his shin was the sign of melanoma
Click to expand...

Ditto!

TheDemSocialist said:
So let me get this straight... You are complaining about how Washington is "broken" but you promote actions that make Washington broken and inefficient. :doh
Click to expand...

It's mostly broken because of Democrats underhanded dealings. Anything Hillary would suggest as President, should be stopped cold!
 
Chomsky said:
WTH!

"Some Senate Republicans have suggested that if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, they will continue to block any nominees she puts forth. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said earlier this month that Republicans in the chamber would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said Wednesday that “there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices.”

“Just recently Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job,” Cruz told reporters. “That’s a debate that we are going to have.”"
Click to expand...

I hope the Senate will use its power to advise and consent on nominations to block any appointments to the Court Mrs. Clinton may try to make, if she is elected and enough Senators find her nominee's judicial philosophy unacceptable.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So let me get this straight... You are complaining about how Washington is "broken" but you promote actions that make Washington broken and inefficient. :doh
Click to expand...

Efficiency is for foreign dictatorships, not America. The Constitution was purposely designed to make the functioning of the federal government balky and inefficient, as each branch is checked and blocked by the others. Article II, sec. 2, cl. 2 conditions the President's authority to make appointments to the Supreme Court on the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate is free to use that power to block nominees it does not want on the Court.
 
matchlight said:
I hope the Senate will use its power to advise and consent on nominations to block any appointments to the Court Mrs. Clinton may try to make, if she is elected and enough Senators find her nominee's judicial philosophy unacceptable.
Click to expand...
That's entirely reasonable, and you worded your statement very well.

But unfortunately, your reasonable position is not what the cited Republicans are putting forth:

"Some Senate Republicans have suggested that if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, they will continue to block any nominees she puts forth. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said earlier this month that Republicans in the chamber would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,”"

The above of course, is consistent with things like Mitch McConnell's 2008 plan to oppose the President as the GOP #1 strategy.
 
MickeyW said:
It's mostly broken because of Democrats underhanded dealings. Anything Hillary would suggest as President, should be stopped cold!
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes. You want Washington to work, but you want it to be a winner take all situation.... "Screw compromise, or bipartisanship, its only going to work only if my side gets everything it wants, but if we dont get everything we want then we will refuse to govern"
 
Chomsky said:
That's entirely reasonable, and you worded your statement very well.

But unfortunately, your reasonable position is not what the cited Republicans are putting forth:

"Some Senate Republicans have suggested that if Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, they will continue to block any nominees she puts forth. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said earlier this month that Republicans in the chamber would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,”"

The above of course, is consistent with things like Mitch McConnell's 2008 plan to oppose the President as the GOP #1 strategy.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any practical difference between their view and mine, because the only nominees to the Court Clinton would be likely to submit would be unacceptable to many Republicans. This process is not about being nice--at heart, it's a fight for our constitutional rights. I detest everything this woman stands for, and if she should be elected, I hope to see one or both houses of Congress do everything possible to block and frustrate her proposals. When someone makes as plain as she has her hostility to the Second Amendment and to parts of the First, I can only consider her an enemy of our most basic individual liberties who must be resisted at every opportunity. A million men did not die defending our fundamental rights during the past two hundred years and more, just so an unprincipled Marxist liar like her could throw them on a trash heap.
 
matchlight said:
I don't think there's any practical difference between their view and mine, because the only nominees to the Court Clinton would be likely to submit would be unacceptable to many Republicans. This process is not about being nice--at heart, it's a fight for our constitutional rights. I detest everything this woman stands for, and if she should be elected, I hope to see one or both houses of Congress do everything possible to block and frustrate her proposals. When someone makes as plain as she has her hostility to the Second Amendment and to parts of the First, I can only consider her an enemy of our most basic individual liberties who must be resisted at every opportunity. A million men did not die defending our fundamental rights during the past two hundred years and more, just so an unprincipled Marxist liar like her could throw them on a trash heap.
Click to expand...
Well - there's a lot of pre-suppositions here.

I think it might be best to evaluate the nominations and proposed legislation on it's own merit, when it can be seen.
 
matchlight said:
I hope the Senate will use its power to advise and consent on nominations to block any appointments to the Court Mrs. Clinton may try to make, if she is elected and enough Senators find her nominee's judicial philosophy unacceptable.
Click to expand...

And if that should happen it will simply force the majority to reform the Senate rules to deep six the archaic 60 vote threshold and go to a simple majority. If a minority of Senators will not do their job, they will reap what they sow and get what they deserve.
 
Chomsky said:
Well - there's a lot of pre-suppositions here.

I think it might be best to evaluate the nominations and proposed legislation on it's own merit, when it can be seen.
Click to expand...

Mr. Trump has made public his list of nominees for the Court, and I assume Mrs. Clinton has, too. It should be possible from studying the histories of the judges on those lists to get a good idea of which ones would be more likely to support what this or that part of the Constitution was intended to mean, and which would be more likely to inject their personal views of what the part of the Constitution in question should mean.

Heller was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority, is no longer with us. Maybe many people who take this lightly haven't read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller, in which three other justices joined. If a Court with one or two Clinton appointees were to overrule Heller and adopt Stevens' views, the individual right to keep and bear arms--a right every bit as fundamental as the right to free speech, or any of the other First Amendment rights--would no longer exist. But judging by my many contacts with pseudo-liberals, most of them are either too dim or too resentful of traditional American values to give a good G--damn about little details like fundamental rights. These people will predictably protest indignantly that they love this country and its Constitution--but don't believe it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom