I was just reading an article about a case the Supreme Court thankfully declined to take up and was treated to the sight of Justice Thomas’s decent. Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public
Thomas writes:
“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,” Justice Thomas wrote, “the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”
Let’s just read the Bill of Rights, the fundamental reference for making constitutional arguments (alongside historical precedence). You can skim or skip over, its just for reference.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
*Amendment II*
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Clarence Thomas is massive hypocrite, and a raving partisan who has no concept of consistency or reality. Its fucking stunning. This is a guy who one, is hugely opposed to judicial activism, or at least frequently has attacked liberal activism and views his key role as undoing past decades of liberal judicial activism. He’s a guy who advocates a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution similar to the late Antonin Scalia. He also often sites the 10th Amendment in striking down or dissenting in judicial cases involving state policies or actions in civil rights or criminal justice, while also referring to the 10th as the root of many opinions opposing Federal action. He doesn’t believe the document is a living one, he opposes reinterpreting historical intents, and believes in the importance of literal interpretation of the language as it stands.
Hence my reaction. Hence my anger. What the fuck is this man doing as a Supreme Court justice? What garbage. What tripe. Fuck it all.
The 2nd amendment:
- Says nothing about self-defense in the text by no interpretation of the English language.
- Was not written by the contemporary writers, politicians and lawyers who framed it with self-defense in mind, but rather with defense of the State against hostile foreign powers, particularly since militias of private citizens had been essential to the success of the Revolutionary war. The text says nothing about personal security, it says the security of a free State and anything else is just adding or assuming meaning and intent where none is written or historically apparent, something Thomas has been staunchly opposed to in other, arguably more justifiable, situations.
This isn’t a speech or some political comment or campaign. This is the fucking legal dissent of a Supreme Court justice whose entire judicial and legal philosophy is supposedly based on literalism and historical originalism, making a radical and unfounded comment, a nonsensical one at that, about the rights established in the constitution on this issue. Not the politics of gun control, the accuracy of his other comments, just take a moment to stand in fury and awe at the sheer hypocrisy and questionable thought-processes it takes to engineer such a comment in a legal dissent for the Supreme Court.
These people are all deplorables.
Update:
Just to be clear, the second level of hypocrisy is that, given the constitution doesn’t define or establish a concept of self-defense, then by Thomas’s own standard reasoning and frequent reference to the 10th Amendment it is the province and right of the states to restrict or define that need as they so desire, as California did by saying the need to is prove an actual and real danger to one’s person, rather than just psychological anxiety (which the gun nuts and the far right have ample amounts of about minorities and crime).