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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Too much? [View all]

elleng

(130,130 posts)
7. thomas thinks, incorrectly, that MANY laws are unconstitutional.
Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:05 PM
Feb 2013

I'm not really concerned about his opinion.

Too much? [View all] dorkulon Feb 2013 OP
I'd say yes Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #1
Its what he was hired for afterall by the biggest bullshitters in gov. office-the Bush family MichiganVote Feb 2013 #2
Yes Kalidurga Feb 2013 #3
Its only one section of the Act that's being considered now. elleng Feb 2013 #4
True, but Thomas has expressed his opinion the the Act is unconstitutional. /nt dorkulon Feb 2013 #5
thomas thinks, incorrectly, that MANY laws are unconstitutional. elleng Feb 2013 #7
Is that like counting some of the votes in Florida? or like being sort of pregnant? robinlynne Feb 2013 #19
the truth hurts sometimes n/t quinnox Feb 2013 #6
yes, too much Skittles Feb 2013 #8
Yeah. I don't even like kicking this. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #9
I'll check in an hour to see if this gets alerted. Baitball Blogger Feb 2013 #10
That you knew to ask demwing Feb 2013 #11
Way too much BainsBane Feb 2013 #12
Thomas doesn't have any legal opinions that aren't written for him by Scalia. baldguy Feb 2013 #18
He deserves it. Quantess Feb 2013 #13
The truth is at times, ugly. Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #14
Not for me... Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #15
Well...it's pretty spot-on. Chorophyll Feb 2013 #16
no. Blue Palasky Feb 2013 #17
Reminds me of how harsh and unflinching Mr. Fish can be. Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #20
Agreed. Summer Hathaway Feb 2013 #22
Not that I want to agree with him but the voting rights act may well be unconstitutional. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #21
I think th burden should be on the party who believes the act is unconstitutional. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #26
I dont necessarily agree with that reasoning but here's my best. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #27
The Fifteenth Ammendment couldn't be ANY clearer: Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #28
I stand corrected. Seems that does apply to this specific law. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #32
i don't see why not. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #34
Not too much at all. Instead, dead fucking on. Zoeisright Feb 2013 #23
It appears that your are using the KKK as a shield in order to call Thomas "boy". Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #24
The clear intent of the OP was to show the KKK calling Thomas, "boy", not the poster. nt. OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #33
Thanks. I would hope that's clear. dorkulon Mar 2013 #35
I object to the boy part - and I think the boy part is why it was posted here. Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #25
Ouch Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #29
Clarence Thomas is more a lapdog of Monsanto than the KKK. He's an ex-Monsanto attorney Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #30
Maybe. Cha Feb 2013 #31
Not enough Tom Ripley Mar 2013 #36
No. 99Forever Mar 2013 #37
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Too much?»Reply #7