Clarence Thomas: true conservative judge or simply smartest nigga alive
 

I've been reading some of the supreme court rulings and noticed how Clarence Thomas often rules.

*If he is a true conservative then he is not really that smart because some of his opinions are just straight out stupid.

Example:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._death_penalty

A black man ruling that's it ok to kick people off a jury just for being black is not really logical.....unless....

*If he is a fake conservative then he is the smartest nigga alive.

Why?

He most often choses a path that is very predictable to appeal to a hardcore group of american caucasions that hold much power. It is so clear that having such a black man take the "power" opinion can send a message of justification to the black community(ie. "Well, look what Clarence said; he's black so why do you disagree"). This makes him a valuable man to conservatives who think they need a minority to back them up. Clearly he has achieved a high position of power thru this method whether fake or not.


His success is undeniable. I just wonder does he really believe the shit he spouts or does he go home every night laughing about how he "tricked them simple minded conservative krackas" into paying him to "nod off" on stuff that "a black man aint got a chance in hell of changing anyway".

I just wonder man, his moves seem so contrived.


Please "can" any comments about "you are racist"; the shit I'm saying is real. People can face it and respond logically or they can just call me names.

"A black man ruling that's it ok to kick people off a jury just for being black is not really logical.....unless...."

Why not if a white people can be picked off a white jury for black defendents ?

The so called conservatives don't write opinions based on conservative or liberal views they base their decisions on the constitution.

The question is should the constitution be viewed exactly as written 200 years
ago or does it change with the times.

Now, if you say it should change then keep in mind the democrats used this argument to keep slavery legal for many years and the right fought for freeing the slaves because they argued the constitution was against slavery !

The bottom line is the big question "should the constitution change" with the times or is it written in stone.

I could put up a good case for either case so it comes down to what you believe in ?

But that's not what is happening. See the yahoo article again where Texas prosecutors were given a manual that stated they should remove blacks and jews from juries. If the manual also said remove whites then you would have a point.


Nice theory of purism but bullshit in reality. Judges write opinions and that's exactly what they are. They don't write fact sheets because their opinion is not nessecarily or even remotely a fact.[/QUOTE]

The see sawing issue of the death penalty proves that the constitution will change in applicaiton even when it does not change physically. Saying it should change with time may overlook the issue of a fucked up "time"...like now. It may be that the new view of the constitution is formulated by a nut case who has gained power(ash-croft ring a bell).

One good thing about Thomas is that he likes porn.

All I'm really saying about him is that when the ruling makes little difference in reality he seems to go political(in the sense of race) and he always takes a position that would be favorable to him in the eyes of the majority.
I think the guy would probably vote down the Martin Luther King holiday by saying that blacks need to work everyday they can. Which is insane considering we have Saint Patricks day. I mean WTF did St. Pat do in America?

"Judges write opinions and that's exactly what they are."

Yes that's my point and that opinion is based on what they believe
the constitution says and "not" what they think it should be.

The recent case with medical pot use is a good example. The three judges that ruled in favor of the case were conservatives because they believe the states have the say in the matter not the feds.

The COPA act that Clinton pushed is another good example. Clinton tried to outlaw porn and the SCOTUS said no you can't do that. It didn't mean the conservatives on the supreme court thought porn was OK. It was that they believe the constitution gave porn some right to be seen/viewed with some protections.

People forget that a Democrat tried to stop porn on the web and the conservatives struck it down !

I need to clarify something and that is I don't define a conservative by his political party. There are plenty of non-liberal democrats out there. Infact I think a case can be made that most democrats(especially in the south) are more on the religious "right" then so-called conservatives.
So I agree with you on those points.

But back to the original question: Is C.T. a conservative at heart or is a smooth panderer of conservative views for personal gain?

:1orglaugh

"But back to the original question: Is C.T. a conservative at heart or is a smooth panderer of conservative views for personal gain?"

Why do you keep trying to put a label on the guy?

The left wants to plant a big lapel on him but it's not about that.

I can read about any case and know 100% how he's going to rule in his
opinion. It's not rocket science and it's very easy. What does the constitution say and then apply it to the case.

Thomas always rules for the constitution 100% and doesn't split any hairs !

The argument shouldn't be against Thomes but against what the constitution says !

This is the position the ACLU takes !

So you are implying that the judges that desent from his opinion never follow the constitution.

So where in the constitution does it say that a defendant can have a jury of his peers stricken because they, like him, are black?

That's full of shit considering that many whites consider blacks as inferior and beneath them except when we need some "peers" at our trial.

There is no provision whatsoever in the contitution that allows or implies that the state(Texas) shall instruct prosecutors to strike jurours of two specific ethnic groups(Blacks and Jews).

Plain and simple blacks and jews get taken off the jury because they have seen the ill results of lynch mod mentality and it is their pride and commitment to not indulge in it themselves and this means the prosecution has to prove the case as required by law instead of just pointing at the defendent and saying "he killed this white girl so convict him".

Blacks and jews want justice and that's a problem because the prosecution only wants victory no matter what.

Oh...I think I like him then....:)