Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does Justice Thomas really interpret the First Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:05 PM
Original message
Does Justice Thomas really interpret the First Amendment
as each state can have its own religion, the way Senator Schumer said yesterday to Jon Stewart? That one can have the Baptist State of New York, the Methodist State of Connecticut and the Catholic State of New Jersey, as examples?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Justice THOMAS Doesn't "Interpret" Shit, Doesn't KNOW Shit,
doesn't RESPECT shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes, that's a given. Still wonder whether Schumer came
with this tidbit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. gonna take thomas '43 years to get even'
with america (thomas was 43 at time of his confirmation) as documented in the mayer, abramson book 'strange justice' published in 1994.....
the fact thomas is black has allowed the nazipoos to use the old porno mad pervert to get away with stating outright his loathing of the very society he's on sup court of!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thomas is no legal scholar according to top lawyers
He was your token GOP black. They confirmed him based on his skin color rather than his legal skills which were severely lacking. Once again, the democrats let the Republicans have their pick.
Even at the cost to Anita Hill.

Thomas will never be seen as anything different. His opinions are poorly written as are his legal arguments. Even the Republicans realize this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. A perfect match of Bush, then (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thomas believes the "establishment clause" is not applicable...
...to states, only to the Federal gov.
It's actually the 14th amemdment he disagrees with;
it made the states fall in line with all the other amendments.

And, YES, if Thomas had his way, states would be able to do that.
Here's some commentary on his arguements in the case of
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW :

http://www.willamette.edu/~blong/LegalEssays/Thomas.htm...
SNIP>
Thomas' second point is an arcane one, even for many lawyers.
In my judgment it ultimately has no merit,
but it has a superficial appeal.
Thomas argued that when the First Amendment religion provisions
became "incorporated" by the Supreme Court
into the Fourteenth Amendment
(that is, became obligatory not simply upon Congress
but also on the States) during the 1940s,
the Court made a mistake.
The Establishment Clause only really was intended to relate to
Congress' not establishing a religion;
it had nothing to do, in fact, with state establishments.
Thomas doensn't note it here, as he does elsewhere,
but several states had an established church long after
the First Amendment was adopted
(MA, for example, was not fully disestablished until 1833),
and so, the argument goes, the First Amendment couldn't have referred
to state establishments. Thus, according to Thomas,
since the CA state law requiring patriotic observances
in each school district is the result of state action,
the US Supreme Court, interpreting here only the federal constitution,
has no authority to deal with the question.
The states are supreme in this instance.
As Thomas says, "the text and history of the Establishment Clause
strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision
intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state
establishments."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Fascinating. Thanks (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. A specific case
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 10:38 PM by DefenseLawyer
is Cutter v. Wilkinson, about restricting religious practices of prison inmates. Thomas believes that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not erect a wall of separation between church and state, but rather was simply designed to prevent Congress from interfering in state establishments of religion. Here is a quote from his concurring opinion:
"Even when enacting laws that bind the States pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion. It need only refrain from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion. For example, Congress presumably could not require a State to establish a religion any more than it could preclude a State from establishing a religion."

So yeah, that is what Justice Pubic Hair really thinks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thank you. And this is Bush "model" of a justice
At least Roberts does possess high intelligence, not that Bush would recognize one if it hit him in the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. Again, Thomas was never known as a legal scholar
Attorneys base much on whether judges are scholars. He has never received that designation. He is not a legal intellectual. He is a token. The Republicans usage of blacks for their purposes will be enlightened. I think Colin Powell will be the first to blast them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC