Justice Clarence Thomas is in the news again and for all the right reasons. He’s defending our Constitutionally protected rights and striking down made-up ones, thereby angering the right people, libs. Since the release of Thomas’ decision in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, liberal heads have been exploding across the country. Fortunately, since there is nothing inside those heads, cleanup has been easy. The usual suspects have mouthed their opposition to the ruling, but as usual, not based on the law but on emotion.
The unelected, unimpressive, unintelligent, very forgettable New York dictator wannabe and governor stunt double, Kathy Hochul, immediately sprang into action. This dullard is so rattled that she is prepared to go back to muskets, like those used when the Constitution was ratified. No word yet on whether she is forcing her security team to switch to muskets and flintlocks. The Second Amendment ends with these words, “…shall not be infringed.” Yet this fill-in, substitute host at the governor’s office admits in her own speech that New York infringes on New Yorkers rights. You can here her say so here:
She should have run her quickly thrown together screed by her lying legal department first. Too late. The anti-infringement language of the Second Amendment is in plain English and plain black and white, not in some penumbra, emanation, emanation from penumbra or penumbra from emanation. It says what it means and means what it says.
This pseudo-governor means what she says too. She is now threatening to totally disregard the SCOTUS decision and implement even tougher anti-Second Amendment restrictions on gun owners in New York. Libs never take no for an answer. After signing numerous gun restrictions into law earlier this month, she’s calling for a special session of the Albany Circus (legislature) to pass even more restrictions (infringements) on the rights of New Yorkers.
In keeping with the proud racist traditions of her party, Hochul is upset that the second black man to ever sit on the Supreme Court has struck down the racist and bigoted law she is so vociferously defending, the Sullivan Act of 1911. The bill is named after its chief sponsor, a corrupt Democrat (sound familiar?) who was part of the Boss Tweed Tammany Hall, Timothy Sullivan. He was reputed to be involved in “prostitution, extortion, and unlawful gambling activities, and he also managed to die of syphilis.” There’s a Democrat for you. The Sullivan Act was a northern version of a Jim Crow law aimed at Italian immigrants. It’s first conviction was of Marino Rossi. Other non-Italians were arrested under the act but not convicted. Hey, if a Democrat governor can’t uphold racist traditions, what good is she?
In pure, biting Constitutional logic Justice Thomas wrote,
“We know of no other constitutional rights that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
In other words, our Constitutionally protected rights don’t come from government or government bureaucrats. That’s just beautiful. That’s so true and succinct. That’s anathema to liberals. The truth always is. No wonder the lovers of Big Brother Government hate Clarence Thomas. They can’t argue with him legally, logically or philosophically. They are left with temper tantrums. No, you can’t have that cookie before dinner. It will ruin your appetite. Waaaaa!
Of course, his reasoned decision set off the unreasonable Hollyweird crowd. You know you’re doing something right when the “stars” who get paid to read scripts go off script and become incomprehensible towards you. These elitist snobs have hated Clarence Thomas since 1991 and this decision gives them one more reason to pile on the hate.
“Truly a disgraceful ruling,” Barbra Streisand tweeted.
SCOTUS “has put the desires of the gun extremists over the
safety of our children,” Julianne Moore said on Instagram.
Don’t tell me this SCOTUS isn’t completely partisan. Shame,
shame, SHAME on the “conservative” members of this ridiculous, laughable court – Bette Midler
So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict abortions, but doesn’t have the right to restrict firearms? Is that what we have now in these “United” States? – George Takei
The Supreme Court has just made death by firearms more convenient – Rob Reiner (Meathead)
When was the last time the very gay George Takei got anything “straight”? It’s a good thing most people don’t take their legal advice from actors and actresses.
To add fuel to the fire, Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, says the Dobbs decision didn’t go far enough. He believes the Dobbs decision should be applied to other decisions (I agree),
“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’…we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents…”
Them’s fighting words for Libs.
“Demonstrably erroneous” precedent is what kept the flawed Roe decision afloat for so long, too long. Nancy “Pelousy”, Chuckie Schumer, Barack Hussein, Shrillary Clinton, Manchin and Susan Collins, et al, made statements about not overturning court precedent. The Supreme Court has in fact overturned its own decisions over 200 times! If it were up to these Dem leaders, we’d still be under the Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu decisions.
Of course, the victory over Roe v. Wade would not have been possible without the very prescient Donald J. Trump. Watch his prophetic utterance here:
Expect a Summer of Rage, not unlike the “Summer of Love” 2020. There will be more violence. It won’t be violence from the pro-Life side, except in moments of 2nd Amendment self-defense. There have been over 40 violent attacks on women crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) around the country since May 2. Expect more. Not a peep from the President about these acts of violence until he spoke about the Dobbs decision. Meaningless words that were too late for these 40+ firebombed CPC’s.
The left’s “logic” is that the SCOTUS should have ignored a Constitutional right, one that is actually written into the Constitution under the 2nd Amendment, and instead should have protected a so-called right under Roe v. Wade, that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and totally made up out of thin air. Huh? I guess it makes sense coming from the same crowd that thinks men can become women and become pregnant. I wonder how many of those pregnant men will be at those CPC’s when they’re firebombed? What planet are liberals living on? What planet do they come from?
I’m so happy that the conservatives on the Court stuck to their guns and didn’t fold to the violent pressure put on them since the Alito draft leak May 2. Of those Justices, Thomas stands out. He’s a true gem of the Supreme Court of the United States. We should treasure him as such. I’m so proud of this Supreme Court. I guess this really is pride month.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN:
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
18 thoughts on “Justice Clarence Thomas – A Judicial Gem”
1000% agree Eagle. Thomas is an absolute national treasure. Appalling what ‘Not-the-President Brandon’ and gang did to him in 1991. I really love your writing style. So amused by this article I had to look at how to contact you and saw your bio. Seems we may have a mutual friend from West Point. He graduated in 1985. Colorful character you may know him. If you can see my email address please send me a message. Thank you.
Thanks Miss S. Glad you enjoyed it. Spread the news. Tell others about AFNN. Share my article. We need to get the conservative word out.
As a Mod I *can* see that, so if Eagle can’t I’ll help facilitate.
Check your email, amigo. 🙂
Wish it was Chief Justice Thomas!
Amen, amigo. Apparently the Bush League thought CT’s appointment was solely as a token for the rubes of the base… 🙁
Other than tradition (and the screaming of the usual suspects) I don’t think there’s any reason why the CJ can’t be swapped out for one of the other justices, assuming they leave everyone that are currently on the court, on the court.
Exactly. Roberts is such a squish.
“… we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents…”
There are any number of other fields where a fundamental error of this kind would result in a automatic review of every paper and finding that used the same flawed technique. They wouldn’t wait for someone to challenge another improper conviction and spend years and treasure trying to correct the mess that was created by building an legal edifice on a flawed legal foundation.
You’re right. Sinking sand is not a firm foundation.
Article suggestions for Eagle:
– “How a random highway woodchuck became governor of NY”
– “Who has the biggest control file? (Brandon, Roberts, etc, etc..)
– “Just keep the drag queens away from the kids. A special guide for naive dummies.”
– “Russia’s ‘Gay Propaganda Law’….”for the Purpose of Protecting Children”….Clutch the pearls then READ IT. (Shock…contains no hate…just common sense.)”
Your welcome Eagle 🙂
I have a better idea. Why don’t you write those columns, Miss S? AFNN could always use more writers. Contact Mike Ford or Diamondback. This could be your big break. You’re welcome.
Better stick to The Boss on this one, for the most part I just take out the trash, keep the floors swept and give suggestions and ideas. 🙂
Thanks for the suggestion Eagle. I will consider. However, I am not a good writer. I’ll need an editor. Your CT story was so well done and entertaining. I had to comment…which I never do. Great writing style you have (take note, I read A LOT!). FYI…found your story via a link on Revolver.
Which headline should I start with ? LOL !
If Eagle vouches for you, I’m willing to pitch in with some editorial assistance–have him shoot you my email if interested. Not exactly a pro, but moonlighted doing some of it back in my college days when I was running interference between the campus paper’s editor and her stalker ex. (The fact that it made an excuse for late nights together getting ready for press after everyone else had gone home was totally just a bonus… 😉 )
Awesome Diamond ! Thanks. I’ll wait to hear from you or Eagle via email.
Meanwhile, which headline from my list should I start with?
Curious to know your opinion…laughing to myself wondering which one you’ll pick…. 😉
That’s a decision only you can make for yourself, ma’am. I have a few ideas for pieces that’ve been percolating for a couple years of my own, but with my first responsibilities being the care needs of a bedridden parent and at the same time trying to get two houses on opposite ends of my county packed up and squared away alongside my day job (which is on an overnight shift since my main client is in Europe–yeah, I don’t sleep much LOL) pretty much lending assists to commenters, whacking spammers and trolls and other general housekeeping here take most of my online time.
One of ’em, I actually started many years ago for a collectibles site I frequent on why the Golden Rule is important on a practical level even more than a moral one, and when I outline the concept Mike asked for first dibs on republication. Another… I have a dog in the immigration fight as part of a “cross-border” relationship, so I’ve been doodling on a white-paper for almost the whole decade my gal and I have been together trying to rework immmigration and border-security making it easier on those who have Value Add or other legit reason to be here while improving and increasing the barriers against terrorists, criminals and Value Minuses. (One of my pet initiatives is a proposal for ‘Reciprocal LPR’ in cases like ours… in a nutshell, it’d be a provisional Green Card contingent upon the partners’ continued marriage where each acts as the other’s sponsor in his/her home country and is responsible for providing for them, divorce terminates the Spousal LPR’s for both within 90 days but while in effect the couple can come and go between the US and the other country at will.)