HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Clarence Thomas says one ...

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

Clarence Thomas says one person one vote, no good...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/04/3766153/justice-thomas-thinks-america-is-too-democratic-he-has-a-shockingly-radical-plan-to-fix-it/



The problem with American democracy, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, is that state governments donít have enough power to manipulate it in order to make some peopleís votes count more than others. Thatís the theory Thomas laid out Monday in an opinion joined by no other justice.


Go ahead, lecture me some more why more of these type justices are no problem...Because this is what you get with a GOP White House.



17 replies, 1493 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:03 AM

1. So vote Bernie and avoid a GOP White House... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:07 AM

4. Plan on doing just that, and then Hillary if necessary. Otherwise, we get more of these

but some people care about their demands more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:24 AM

13. Yeah, those pesky principles some people have... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:30 AM

14. I know, I mean so what if SC decides one person one vote no longer applies.

I mean if you are part of the white male property owner class, you will be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #14)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:31 AM

15. Yeah, that's going to happen. Sure.

 

But a vote for Hillary will definitely put another corporate-friendly justice on the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:32 AM

16. Now you are just responding to respond. There is an agenda here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:32 AM

17. Sure. whatever conspiracy you need to believe in... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:04 AM

2. Sure...but all I hear are crickets from dems during a huge campaign cycle.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:05 AM

3. Maybe his vote in the SCOTUS should count three fifths? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:08 AM

5. I see what you did there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:09 AM

6. Well. The hypocrisy is astounding.

But, it's obvious that Clarence Thomas learned quite a bit from Scalia.

Would love to hear what he has to say about the three-fifths compromise:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:11 AM

8. Of course he has a great rationalization for everything. The new Paul Ryan Supreme Court

will have great explanations why only white property owners can vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:11 AM

7. He actually spoke? Out loud?

I'm more shocked at that than anything!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BellaLuna (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:12 AM

9. It was in a decision where he agreed to do the right thing because it didnt

go far enough, didnt do enough damage to voting rights.

It was his written word, not spoken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:16 AM

11. thanks..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:13 AM

10. One wonders if he'd be content to get 3/5 of a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:21 AM

12. The irony is lost on him because he is a true conservative/idiot.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread