He was on to something.
“Every July, some of the richest and most powerful men in the world gather at a 2,700 acre campground in Monte Rio, Calif., for two weeks of heavy drinking, super-secret talks, druid worship (the group insists they are simply “revering the Redwoods”), and other rituals.” Wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html
What’s racist about it?
They’re doing it wrong.
Please elaborate
In general, Republicans got tired of all their racist attacks on Obama being called out for racism, and they understood it to mean that any critique of a black man is racist.
So you can’t point out reality like Thomas got into law school under an AA program and turned against AA, that he’s the least qualified justice or being a conservative extremist far outside of the mainstream without Republicans thinking it must be racist.
Meh. However people want to spend their time.
Seems like a relic of a time when rich white men would form clubs to do rich white men stuff.
The undisclosed vacations paid by a Republican megadonor is one thing. His wife’s flirtation with abetting an attempted coup is another. Add it up and it looks really gross.
Thomas has also been a leading proponent of ignoring stare decisis- “to stand by things decided” - or what used to be called judicial legislating by the Right…until recently. Thomas would love to dismantle most of 20th century jurisprudence if he could. Overturning Roe is a sparkling example.
Ah. Kind of like any critique of Israel is antisemitic.
Stare decísis isn’t the constitution.
Citizens United is stare decisis.
Overturning cases is his prerogative. In fact it’s in his job description. Disagreeing with him is ours.
That’s the way it works with the libs shiny new two tiered America. The Biden’s aren’t even trying to hide Joe’s status as a bought and paid for Chinese stooge…
Are these disclosure requirements being discussed the ones that were adopted by new regulations 3 weeks ago?
Fair enough. At the same time stare decisis may not be spelled out in the Constitution but it has long roots in law going back to the 18th century. Bad law should be overturned. But we are not talking about one or two cases here. Thomas would love nothing more than to dismantle 20th century jurisprudence up to and including gay marriage and sodomy laws.
From Thomas’ words:
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,” Ramos v. Louisiana…(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)…we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States…(2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring)….After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
Nope. The ProPublica article is clear, disclosure law put into place right after Watergate.
Of course he would. People need to realize that he was a non entity for decades on that bench.
Decades.
He finally feels empowered.
Oh and by the way all of what’s happening isn’t Thomas. It’s. Alito.
We can still hate Thomas though, right?
I would add to that- if Thomas’ beliefs were coherent I could almost see people making his case.
He is a firm critic of the 14th amendment’s due process clause as it has been used to expand rights in terms of reproduction, gay rights, etc.
Interestingly he picks on only two areas- gay rights and abortion that are protected under “due process” while ignoring the most telling part- that the clause was instrumental for overcoming anti-miscegenation laws.
This shows that he is solely interested in political objectives instead of a coherent judicial philosophy.
If you want to dismantle an entire branch of judicial rulings because you disagree with their philosophical underpinnings, you can’t pick and choose.
Not good, definitely feels like an ethics violation.
What happens to a SCOTUS for an ethics violation?
20 years of not disclosing seems pretty egregious to me. He can hardly claim he did not know.
