Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Clarence Thomas Scoots Right -- Again

Posted by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive at 7:30 AM on June 27, 2009.


After 18 years of sleepwalking through proceedings, Thomas has found his niche: the most conservative judge in the court.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Finally, the Supreme Court has made a good decision on civil liberties.

The justices ruled when she was 13, Savana Redding had her rights violated when school officials insisted that she be strip-searched for the possession of—hold on here!—ibuprofen.

She had to strip to her underwear, then pull her bra and panties out and expose her privates. School officials found no drugs.

Savana called it “the most humiliating experience I’ve ever had.”

Ruling 8-1, the Justices concluded that Safford Middle School went too far.

That’s a welcome departure for the court, which has steadily increased the authority of school districts to intrude on the rights of students, with random drug testing of athletes and anyone in extracurricular activities. The court also has invited excessive monitoring of school newspapers.

For once, the court, almost unanimously, made a course correction.

The only dissenter was Clarence Thomas, who after sleepwalking through 18 years on the court, has finally settled on a role for himself other than that of Scalia’s second vote. And that is, to be even further to the right of Scalia. Earlier this week, Thomas was the sole member of the court who wanted to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In the Redding case, Thomas defended the school, saying that “preservation of order, discipline, and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution.”

He, evidently, would have students lose all their rights when they walk through the school doors.

I’d hate for my kid to have him as a principal.

And I hate for my country to have him as a Justice.

Digg!

Tagged as: supreme court, court, clarence thomas, savana redding, strip search

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.


How Anti-Choice Dems and Mike Huckabee Could Team Up to Screw Over America's Women
Half of America wants to see 'President Huck' in 2012. Because of him and conservative Democrats, women have a tough fight ahead.
Post by Allison Kilkenny. November 11, 2009.
Marine Reservist Chases, Assaults Greek Orthodox Priest Whom He Mistook for an Arab Terrorist
Jasen D. Bruce hit the priest in the head with a tire iron, then chased him three blocks.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 11, 2009.
Idaho Republican Blake Hall Fired for Throwing Used Condoms on the Lawn of a Woman He Was Stalking
"It's unimaginable that a 56-year-old would be so deviant."
Post by Steven D.. November 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Doesn't It Make You Wonder
Posted by: Freticat on Jun 27, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What interest Clarence Thomas has in stripping 13-year-old girls?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doesn't It Make You Wonder Posted by: inprov73
» RE: Doesn't It Make You Wonder Posted by: IRIQUOIS227
Why the hatefest? Remember the Raich and Kelo cases?
Posted by: tomwright on Jun 27, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never understood the hate-fest the left engages in when discussing Clarence Thomas.

He was on the correct side in the Raich Medical Marijuana case, where he ruled in favor of California being able to make it's own laws.

He was on the correct side in the Kelo homes taking case, where he ruled against government taking peoples homes just to give them to powerful corporations for higher tax revenue. Quote: "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution"

In both those cases the left end of the court voted in favor of government intrusion, for federal control over states medical marijuana laws and in favor of stealing peoples homes for the benefit of Ikea, Home Depot, Walmart or even the mayors brother-in-law.

So he isn't perfect, but he is more independent than most justices. He dissents from Scalia an the right end of the court far more than any of the left wing Justices dissent from the left side of the court.

So he's wrong in this case. I have not read the ruling so I do not know what his reasoning is, or why he wrote it. He has been known to dissent when he holds a firm view on his interpretation. He has also been known to dissent when his vote does not matter, just to make a point against the courts previous rulings.

Look at all the mans decisions. Then look at all the decisions of the 'left wing' justices. I think you will be shocked at who your friend really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CLARENCE THOMAS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 27, 2009 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's a man with serious psychological problems that interfere with his abiiity to analyze what's put before him. He takes the easy way out. Having a rigid mind really simplifies things. He doesn't overthink anything, because his brain doesn't functon that way. That fact that he's so predicable is very disturbing. Another fact is: Clarence Thomas had NO Constitutional Law experience when he was appointed. He still doesn't. Washington, D.C. is filled with useless, overpaid well connected people. If GHWB felt so strongly about Thomas, that's where he belonged. But he holds one the most powerful jobs in the land. Still living in a constant state of "pissed off". He continues to hand down decisions that reflect his hateful, perverted personality rather than his knowledge. That does not make him a Conservative. It makes him unfit to be a judge, of any kind. A Supreme Court Justice is not someone we should "put up with" so his feelings aren't hurt. He's someone we should get rid of. Thanks,ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clarence Thomas is just another
Posted by: bettyn on Jun 27, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush Family flunkie. He was put on the Supreme Court to support anything this criminal family wanted and he has served them well. At least David Souter refused to serve Master Georgie (both of them). For THAT ALONE he will always be one of my heroes.

Thomas should have never been put on the Court. He should be impeached as he is an embarressment to our nation. (Has there ever been a more self-loathing African American male than this man? I think not!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah! Clarence Thomas!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 27, 2009 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't he a delight? Malcolm X had a word for people like Uncle Thomas. To understand further what I am talking about just click on the link below. It's a little ditty I composed almost two years ago on the subject of the good judge:

America's Favorite House Nigger

Happy reading, kiddies!

Love and Peace,

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Correct Link:
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 27, 2009 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here it is:

America's Favorite House Nigger

Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CLARENCE THOMAS HAS SERVED HIS PURPOSE. NOW IMPEACH HIM. HIS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jun 27, 2009 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
purpose was to "damn with faint praise". Choosing the worst possible choice for the Supreme Court was intentional. Its purpose was to insult the hated black persons of this United States. The republicans do hate black persons. They did it to rub in their hatred.

Clarence Thomas has served his purpose. Impeach him. On the way impeach every justice that voted for George Bush in 2000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clarence already IS well known as a sexual deviant
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Jun 28, 2009 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, as it is, Clarence is a sexual deviant. Perhaps he sees his retirement years doing short arm inspections on little boys, and stripping little girls to look for signs of terrorism (and puberty). Gotta protec the cuntry, I MEAN COUNTRY!!, yo know!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]