Clarence Thomas needs to go

[yoshi121374]

Really, he thinks a domestic abuser should be able to buy a gun. Even Alito voted against that.

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

Friday's decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, could have major implications for several pending gun-rights cases and legislative measures

www.foxnews.com

 

[okclem]

Thomas's decision was very likely written by the NRA. Not even being a little sarcastic. His biggest benefactor is a Nazi sympathizer/memorabilia collector.

8-1. Embarrassing.

 

[okclem]

The biggest win was Amy Coney-Barrett writing in her decision that there are limits to the 2nd amendment.

 

[yoshi121374]

Thomas's decision was very likely written by the NRA. Not even being a little sarcastic. His biggest benefactor is a Nazi sympathizer/memorabilia collector.

8-1. Embarrassing.

How in the hell do you even justify that vote if you are him? I'm flabbergasted.

 

[yoshi121374]

The biggest win was Amy Coney-Barrett writing in her decision that there are limits to the 2nd amendment.

As mentioned in another thread, it's funny how Barrett and Kavanaugh have actually been much more moderate than the hard-line MAGAs thought. They at least seem to be using legal judgement and not straight party line idiology like Alito and Thomas.

 

[okclem]

How in the hell do you even justify that vote if you are him? I'm flabbergasted.

I listened to his ruling. It makes no legal sense at all.

 

[Dadar]

Never should have gotten in.

 

[fatpiggy]

Clarence Thomas will go.

Spoiler

When he dies

Spoiler

Or when Trumps 2nd term is finished

 

[okclem]

Clarence Thomas will go.

Spoiler

When he dies

Spoiler

Or when Trumps 2nd term is finished

Wow, you really don't ever see a big picture, do you?

 

[Willence]

Really, he thinks a domestic abuser should be able to buy a gun. Even Alito voted against that.

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

Friday's decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, could have major implications for several pending gun-rights cases and legislative measures

www.foxnews.com

It was a difficult case but the principle that only upon conviction should a person's right to bear arms be infringed is a valid viewpoint. As usual, people with agendas try to simplify things so they can demonize someone they don't like. There's a lot of room for abuse with the precedent that was set here. The only way it makes sense is to contort it with observation of the horrendously sick culture we have as justification to implement controls on people. Never mind the reality we are reaping what we sow due to the culture we have created.

 

[hopefultiger13]

It was a difficult case but the principle that only upon conviction should a person's right to bear arms be infringed is a valid viewpoint. As usual, people with agendas try to simplify things so they can demonize someone they don't like. There's a lot of room for abuse with the precedent that was set here. The only way it makes sense is to contort it with observation of the horrendously sick culture we have as justification to implement controls on people. Never mind the reality we are reaping what we sow due to the culture we have created.

It really wasn't a difficult case b/c there ARE limits to the Bill of Rights and specifically the 1st and 2nd amendments. In that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre and we already have laws where Felons can't own or purchase guns.

Someone accused of something is still innocent after all. Anyone can make an accusation. However, this case requires a restraining order also be present. I've included a link below for requirements for one. In general, there has to be evidence of violence or harassment AND you have to be in reasonable fear of physical violence. This happens in front of a judge with actual testimony before a restraining order can be given.

Also, we aren't talking about something that's never going away. If you stay away from the person, the restraining order can and will be dropped. Easy peasy.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/what-proof-do-you-need-to-get-a-restraining-order/

 

[okclem]

It was a difficult case but the principle that only upon conviction should a person's right to bear arms be infringed is a valid viewpoint. As usual, people with agendas try to simplify things so they can demonize someone they don't like. There's a lot of room for abuse with the precedent that was set here. The only way it makes sense is to contort it with observation of the horrendously sick culture we have as justification to implement controls on people. Never mind the reality we are reaping what we sow due to the culture we have created.

So difficult it was an 8-1 decision on the most partisan scotus ever. Do you people never stop with the bullshit?

 

[DW4_2016]

Wow, you really don't ever see a big picture, so you?

@fatpiggy is pro corruption as long as it puts his boys in power. constitution only applies to one party in his head.

 

[Willence]

So difficult it was an 8-1 decision on the most partisan scotus ever. Do you people never stop with the bullshit?

So what you're saying is if someone doesn't agree with the majority they are dumb or are automatically wrong? There are many correct thoughts that weren't shared by the majority throughout history. I didn't know a constitutional philosophy could be partisan. I think what you need to realize is that you see everything through a partisan lens. So therefore everything is partisan to you. But just because you believe that doesn't make it reality.

Justice Thomas advocates for a very solid and well founded legal philosophy. It doesn't mean you are wrong if you disagree with him. And he certainly isn't always right. But it doesn't make his viewpoint any less valid. In terms of original intent in our founding documents, it is by far the best methodology for a Supreme Court Justice.

You seem to be of the delusional viewpoint that the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to decide what is right or what is the most just decision. That's not it at all.

 

[okclem]

So what you're saying is if someone doesn't agree with the majority they are dumb or are automatically wrong? There are many correct thoughts that weren't shared by the majority throughout history. I didn't know a constitutional philosophy could be partisan. I think what you need to realize is that you see everything through a partisan lens. So therefore everything is partisan to you. But just because you believe that doesn't make it reality.

Justice Thomas advocates for a very solid and well founded legal philosophy. It doesn't mean you are wrong if you disagree with him. And he certainly isn't always right. But it doesn't make his viewpoint any less valid. In terms of original intent in our founding documents, it is by far the best methodology for a Supreme Court Justice.

You seem to be of the delusional viewpoint that the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to decide what is right or what is the most just decision. That's not it at all.

Hahaha holy shit. Wow, I'm genuinely impressed with your ability to bullshit. Not even being the least bit insincere.

 

[Willence]

Hahaha holy shit. Wow, I'm genuinely impressed with your ability to bullshit. Not even being the least bit insincere.

I don't bs. I just shared my opinion. I know we won't agree. Though I would enjoy a debate with you about what you did not like.

 

[BlueRidgedf]

Despite the racist democrats on here. Let's talk about his opinion. He is saying a woman can simply just accuse a man of violence and he automatically guilty and should lose his 2nd amendment rights.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Despite the racist democrats on here. Let's talk about his opinion. He is saying a woman can simply just accuse a man of violence and he automatically guilty and should lose his 2nd amendment rights.

Only if you ignore everything else shared in this thread.

 

[Willence]

Only if you ignore everything else shared in this thread.

Like what? Very little of any substance has been shared in this thread. His assessment of the situation is plausible.

 

[BlueRidgedf]

Like what? Very little of any substance has been shared in this thread. His assessment of the situation is plausible.

They don't like Thomas because he's not under the white liberal thumb.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Like what? Very little of any substance has been shared in this thread. His assessment of the situation is plausible.

It’s not though. You have to have a restraining order. To get one, you have to go in front of a judge. Then, if the order is dropped, you can once again get a gun. It’s just absolutely not what he was saying and to characterize it like he did is disingenuous and I’ve read your stuff enough to know that you know that.

 

[BlueRidgedf]

It’s not though. You have to have a restraining order. To get one, you have to go in front of a judge. Then, if the order is dropped, you can once again get a gun. It’s just absolutely not what he was saying and to characterize it like he did is disingenuous and I’ve read your stuff enough to know that you know that.

The courts almost always side with the woman. If she says he beat her up, he will be found guilty 99% of the time.

 

[Willence]

It’s not though. You have to have a restraining order. To get one, you have to go in front of a judge. Then, if the order is dropped, you can once again get a gun. It’s just absolutely not what he was saying and to characterize it like he did is disingenuous and I’ve read your stuff enough to know that you know that.

So let's play your scenario out. A woman accuses a man of abuse and goes before judge to ask for a restraining order. The restraining order is granted and the police disarm the man in the situation. The woman who alleges to be abused then gets a gun and kills the man because she knows he's no longer armed. How does that work out?

The idea of a restraining order is that that keeps the two parties apart. Going the additional mile of disarming the person is taking things to a larger degree than is necessary. Isn't that what litigation is for to establish guilt or innocence in a case where abuse is charged?

 

[DW4_2016]

They don't like Thomas because he's not under the white liberal thumb.

Corruption only happens with liberals.

 

[dbjork6317]

As mentioned in another thread, it's funny how Barrett and Kavanaugh have actually been much more moderate than the hard-line MAGAs thought. They at least seem to be using legal judgement and not straight party line idiology like Alito and Thomas.

And the biggest MAGA true believer was a W appointee. Thomas believes in nothing, he’s a justice for sale who found his niche in being the right wing’s token black conservative and just leeched off of Scalia’s intellect.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

So let's play your scenario out. A woman accuses a man of abuse and goes before judge to ask for a restraining order. The restraining order is granted and the police disarm the man in the situation. The woman who alleges to be abused then gets a gun and kills the man because she knows he's no longer armed. How does that work out?

The idea of a restraining order is that that keeps the two parties apart. Going the additional mile of disarming the person is taking things to a larger degree than is necessary. Isn't that what litigation is for to establish guilt or innocence in a case where abuse is charged?

A judge examines the situation and makes a call. How does it work out if somebody who has a restraining order against them goes out and gets a gun to go kill the person who secured the restraining order? Something that's far more likely to happen than this goofball scenario you've imagined.

The idea of a restraining order is that it keeps one party away from another for an argued reason of safety. Preventing people whom a court has decided present some threat to others from getting a gun seems like a pretty damn reasonable idea. We do it all the time.

 

[TigerGrowls]

It's a snowflake party and I missed it!! This is an appropriate yoshi thread.😅🤣

 

[Willence]

A judge examines the situation and makes a call. How does it work out if somebody who has a restraining order against them goes out and gets a gun to go kill the person who secured the restraining order? Something that's far more likely to happen than this goofball scenario you've imagined.

The idea of a restraining order is that it keeps one party away from another for an argued reason of safety. Preventing people whom a court has decided present some threat to others from getting a gun seems like a pretty damn reasonable idea. We do it all the time.

It's not a goofball scenario. My primary point is that it's not unreasonable to believe that until guilt is established, a person shouldn't have their 2nd amendment right taken from them.

 

[Dadar]

Corruption only happens with liberals.

Are you serious?

 

[PrimeIsGettingComfortable]

It's not a goofball scenario. My primary point is that it's not unreasonable to believe that until guilt is established, a person shouldn't have their 2nd amendment right taken from them.

So you believe that anyone accused of murder, rape, terrorism, etc should be walking the streets free until their trial has concluded and they have been found guilty?

 

[Willence]

So you believe that anyone accused of murder, rape, terrorism, etc should be walking the streets free until their trial has concluded and they have been found guilty?

Is accused your way of saying charged? If you're charged with those crimes you're either in jail or out on bail. That's different than a restraining order.

 

[DW4_2016]

Are you serious?

Does my statement seem reasonable? If not, maybe it was a joke.

 

[Allornothing]

Are you serious?

It's was sarcasm. You were just not intelligent to pick up what he was putting down.

 

[PrimeIsGettingComfortable]

Is accused your way of saying charged? If you're charged with those crimes you're either in jail or out on bail. That's different than a restraining order.

No, accused is another way of saying charged.

But your point above “My primary point is that it's not unreasonable to believe that until guilt is established, a person shouldn't have their 2nd amendment right taken from them.” indicates that anyone who has not yet been found guilty should not have any rights stripped away yet we do it day in and day out in our judicial system.

 

[Allornothing]

No, accused is another way of saying charged.

But your point above “My primary point is that it's not unreasonable to believe that until guilt is established, a person shouldn't have their 2nd amendment right taken from them.” indicates that anyone who has not yet been found guilty should not have any rights stripped away yet we do it day in and day out in our judicial system.

Forget the second amendment part.

What do you say about the people that have been arrested 50, 100 times and are still not in jail?

 

[Willence]

No, accused is another way of saying charged.

But your point above “My primary point is that it's not unreasonable to believe that until guilt is established, a person shouldn't have their 2nd amendment right taken from them.” indicates that anyone who has not yet been found guilty should not have any rights stripped away yet we do it day in and day out in our judicial system.

It really isn't. A person can accuse someone of something but that has nothing to do with the police or any investigation. Charges are brought when there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed. Again, we're talking about restraining orders for domestic issues which have a high rate of unreliability. You've taken a giant leap to make your argument. I suspect that is because in the original circumstances, there isn't very far to take that.

 

[PrimeIsGettingComfortable]

It really isn't. A person can accuse someone of something but that has nothing to do with the police or any investigation. Charges are brought when there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed. Again, we're talking about restraining orders for domestic issues which have a high rate of unreliability. You've taken a giant leap to make your argument. I suspect that is because in the original circumstances, there isn't very far to take that.

So the police have never charged someone with rape, attempted murder, etc? How do you think they charge someone with a crime? Think there is ever an accusation involved?

You have a funny way of processing information.

 

[okclem]

 

[Willence]

So the police have never charged someone with rape, attempted murder, etc? How do you think they charge someone with a crime? Think there is ever an accusation involved?

You have a funny way of processing information.

Yes they have. Where's the argument here? I process information funny? Hmmm OK. Pot meet kettle. Except in this case, you're not processing at all. You're engaging in a disingenuous argument that has very little to do with what I was saying to begin with.

 

[PrimeIsGettingComfortable]

Yes they have. Where's the argument here? I process information funny? Hmmm OK. Pot meet kettle. Except in this case, you're not processing at all. You're engaging in a disingenuous argument that has very little to do with what I was saying to begin with.

The bottom line is that anyone who is charged with a crime - guilty or not - will have rights taken away if the crime is severe enough before they even go to trial.

You don’t seem to understand that and are incapable of reasoning why someone would lose their right to carry a gun before going to trial.