Jill Abramson writes in the UK(!) Guardian, "Justice Clarence Thomas leading the US supreme court? A scary thought."
She winds up her screed, "And a Thomas court is exactly what people who truly value the constitution and human rights must fight to make sure we never see."
I will grant that there is a plausible reading of 'truly valuing human rights' -- e.g., for those who think abortion could somehow be a human right -- for which that makes sense. How can one 'truly value' the Constitution, however, and object to an originalist like Thomas? Why not just admit that you're more attached to your view of 'human rights' than to the Constitution, and want to see the Constitution modified or subordinated accordingly? After all, you're already a citizen of the United States criticizing your government for a foreign newspaper. A British newspaper, even. And the week of Independence Day.
4 comments:
Talking about the Queen on Independence Day?
The hostility to Thomas always has baffled me. He may lack the verve of someone like Scalia, but he's always solid.
The hostility to Thomas always has baffled me.
As Clarence Thomas is a black who left the liberal plantation, libs consider him to be an apostate, a traitor.
Every year, Tom, there's somebody talking about the Queen on Independence Day.
Post a Comment