Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:02 AM Apr 2016

Clarence Thomas says one person one vote, no good...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/04/3766153/justice-thomas-thinks-america-is-too-democratic-he-has-a-shockingly-radical-plan-to-fix-it/



The problem with American democracy, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, is that state governments don’t have enough power to manipulate it in order to make some people’s votes count more than others. That’s the theory Thomas laid out Monday in an opinion joined by no other justice.


Go ahead, lecture me some more why more of these type justices are no problem...Because this is what you get with a GOP White House.



17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
4. Plan on doing just that, and then Hillary if necessary. Otherwise, we get more of these
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:07 AM
Apr 2016

but some people care about their demands more.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
14. I know, I mean so what if SC decides one person one vote no longer applies.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:30 AM
Apr 2016

I mean if you are part of the white male property owner class, you will be fine.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
15. Yeah, that's going to happen. Sure.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:31 AM
Apr 2016

But a vote for Hillary will definitely put another corporate-friendly justice on the bench.

Baitball Blogger

(47,154 posts)
6. Well. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:09 AM
Apr 2016

But, it's obvious that Clarence Thomas learned quite a bit from Scalia.

Would love to hear what he has to say about the three-fifths compromise:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
8. Of course he has a great rationalization for everything. The new Paul Ryan Supreme Court
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:11 AM
Apr 2016

will have great explanations why only white property owners can vote.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
9. It was in a decision where he agreed to do the right thing because it didnt
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:12 AM
Apr 2016

go far enough, didnt do enough damage to voting rights.

It was his written word, not spoken.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clarence Thomas says one ...