Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

News and events of the day
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

Post by Libertas »

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarenc ... ion-2022-6


I tweeted about this after Randi Rhodes told us about this with the implication that he was going to take our rights away because we are not paying attention. That was her take on it, mine too.

But of course he would never say it with those words.
Thomas said Americans had seemingly "lost interest" in constitutional matters, a new book says.

"They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country," he said in the book.

Thomas said Scalia had similar sentiments as him about a lack of urgency in protecting liberties.
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Headline: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

Hmph.

Sounds like rainwater. :problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Libertas »

carmenjonze wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:54 pm Headline: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

Hmph.

Sounds like rainwater. :problem:
Yeah...also sounds like he is more than happy to take rights away when others arent paying attention. Now that people are, fingers crossed something changes.

I read that Manchin and Collins are saying Gorsuch lied to them, duh, and they may be willing to play ball on filibuster for this issue. Hope this is true, before the cons including those here start killing Women.
I sigh in your general direction.
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by bird »

Welp, I sure don’t want a lecture from that hack about what is right. For the last 40+ years we have been cajoled, nudged, scolded and agitpropped that “the market” must be uber alles.

Fuck you Clarence.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by ProfX »

We can debate what Justice Thomas knows about the Constitution or iPhones. As for other areas ...

[from Twitter]
Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC
he Supreme Court DENIES a religious liberty challenge to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf ... 3_3f14.pdf

In his dissent, Thomas claims that COVID vaccines were developed with the use of "aborted children." https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf ... 3_3f14.pdf
[end]

That claim is, of course, demonstrably false.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:46 pm We can debate what Justice Thomas knows about the Constitution or iPhones. As for other areas ...

[from Twitter]
Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC
he Supreme Court DENIES a religious liberty challenge to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf ... 3_3f14.pdf

In his dissent, Thomas claims that COVID vaccines were developed with the use of "aborted children." https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf ... 3_3f14.pdf
[end]

That claim is, of course, demonstrably false.
No he didn’t. You might actually read the dissent and figure it out.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:02 pm No he didn’t.
:?

Yes, he did.

The exact quote:
Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New
York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic.
They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19
vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.
The exact quote in context:
The State exempted employees from the mandate
if vaccination would be “detrimental to [their] health.”
§2.61(d)(1). However, the State denied a similar exemption
to those with religious objections. See Dr. A. v. Hochul, 595
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (GORSUCH , J., dissenting from denial
of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 3). Conse-
quently, those who qualified for the broad medical exemp-
tion simply had to employ standard protective measures
and could keep their jobs. But those who objected for reli-
gious reasons would be fired, even if they took the same pro-
tective measures. See id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 3–5).

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New
York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic.
They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19
vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children. Pet. for Cert. 8. Ordered to
choose between their jobs and their faith, petitioners sued
in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York, claiming that the State’s vaccine mandate violated
the Free Exercise Clause. The District Court agreed and
issued a preliminary injunction. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___,
2021 WL 4734404, *8 (Oct. 12, 2021). The Court of Appeals
reversed. We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F. 4th
266 (CA2 2021) (per curiam); We the Patriots USA, Inc. v.
Hochul, 17 F. 4th 368 (CA2 2021) (per curiam). This Court
then denied petitioners’ emergency application to reinstate
the injunction, which three of us would have granted. See
Dr. A., 595 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1). Since then, “every
Petitioner except one has been fired, forced to resign, lost
admitting privileges, or been coerced into a vaccination.”
Pet. for Cert. 13–14, and n. 10.
:?
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by ProfX »

I think it's fair to say this was not a claim Thomas was making himself, as one he believes. The point, though, is he seems to think it's a valid religious belief of plaintiffs in the case.

It goes back to a question I keep asking. Are all objections rooted in religious belief valid simply because they are "sincere"? Should we not care about their concurrence with reality? Also, given that if the plaintiffs are Catholic, the Pope and Bishops don't agree with their stance ...

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-a ... etal-cells

No, the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, fetal cell lines – cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells collected generations ago – were used in testing during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

[snip]

It is true that decades ago, scientists decided to use fetal tissue to start the cell lines we use to test drugs today. However, the description of ongoing modern fetal tissue harvesting to create vaccines is dishonest sensationalism.

As a practicing Catholic, I think the moral balance of indirectly benefitting from an abortion that occurred 50 years ago in order to take a vaccine that will prevent further death in the community is a no-brainer – especially considering that so many of the over 620,000 American deaths have occurred in the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society. We need to focus on saving lives right now. We need to care for our neighbors.

The Vatican and bishops agree. The Vatican has issued clear guidance that permits Roman Catholics in good faith to receive COVID-19 vaccines that use fetal cell lines in development or production. Read the Vatican's comments on the morality of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

[snip]

Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from abortions in the 1970s and 1980s.

Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating the fetal cell lines I mentioned above. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus.

When it comes to the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, fetal cell line HEK 293 was used during the research and development phase. All HEK 293 cells are descended from tissue taken from a 1973 abortion that took place in the Netherlands. Using fetal cell lines to test the effectiveness and safety of medications is common practice, because they provide a consistent and well-documented standard.

[snip][end]

BTW, a large number of vaccines against a variety of diseases - not just COVID-19 - and many drugs against current diseases - are developed with these cell lines.

At this point, these cell lines contain no fetal tissue. From abortions or elsewhere. Secondly, the vaccine itself was not developed with, nor contains, any cells from HEK-293. It was used in testing the vaccine, but again this is true of many drugs.

https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/1 ... /9/HEK.pdf

I hope these sincere believers are also not using Tylenol, Claritin, Benadryl, Tums, Mucinex, Pepto Bismol, or other common OTC drugs, as they are also tested using HEK-293 as well.

I wonder.

BTW, that original 1973 abortion, 50 years ago, in the Netherlands might have been to protect the life of the mother.

I really don't see much of a religio-bioethical leg to stand on here ... neither does the Pope.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Glennfs
Posts: 10315
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Glennfs »

I liked Clarence Thomas much better back when he was Scalia's lackey.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:30 am I liked Clarence Thomas much better back when he was Scalia's lackey.
Self-loathing Black conservative extremists are the only sorts of people of African descent conservative whites like.

Probably because they’re as pliant as you are, regardless of white con they’re lackeys of.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by ProfX »

As I noted earlier, Scalia sometimes distanced himself from Thomas. The relationship was not that ... smooth.

Clarence Thomas Has His Own Constitution
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... nstitution

[snip]

The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. It’s an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.

Thomas just turned sixty-eight years old, and reports of his impending retirement briefly surfaced before his wife shot them down as “bogus.” Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Thomas would allow any Democrat to choose his successor. Shortly after Scalia died, Thomas asked his first question in oral argument in more than a decade, but it’s highly unlikely that he will take on Scalia’s role as the pugnacious conservative in the Court’s public sessions. Rather, Thomas will continue his own way, increasingly alone, as the Court, for the first time in two generations, moves to the left. As for Thomas’s place on the Court, it’s difficult to improve on Scalia’s analysis, which I heard him give at a synagogue a decade ago. Scalia was asked about how his judicial philosophy differed from Thomas’s. “I’m an originalist,” Scalia said, “but I’m not a nut.”

[snip][end]

There are numerous 8-1 dissents in court cases where Thomas is the only dissenter.

Like this case in January.
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ee-1670999

Image

He reminds me of Ron "Dr. No" Paul who was often the only person in the House to vote against bills and resolutions.

His belief in "natural law" I also find ... quixotic and problematic. (Gorsuch has also suggested he believes in such a thing).
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... aw/283311/
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Bludogdem »

So, amazingly, Politico has figured out what

“ Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New
York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic.
They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19
vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.”

actually means.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/154 ... wsrc%5Etfw
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:29 am As I noted earlier, Scalia sometimes distanced himself from Thomas. The relationship was not that ... smooth.

Clarence Thomas Has His Own Constitution
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... nstitution

[snip]

The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. It’s an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.

Thomas just turned sixty-eight years old, and reports of his impending retirement briefly surfaced before his wife shot them down as “bogus.” Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Thomas would allow any Democrat to choose his successor. Shortly after Scalia died, Thomas asked his first question in oral argument in more than a decade, but it’s highly unlikely that he will take on Scalia’s role as the pugnacious conservative in the Court’s public sessions. Rather, Thomas will continue his own way, increasingly alone, as the Court, for the first time in two generations, moves to the left. As for Thomas’s place on the Court, it’s difficult to improve on Scalia’s analysis, which I heard him give at a synagogue a decade ago. Scalia was asked about how his judicial philosophy differed from Thomas’s. “I’m an originalist,” Scalia said, “but I’m not a nut.”

[snip][end]

There are numerous 8-1 dissents in court cases where Thomas is the only dissenter.

Like this case in January.
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ee-1670999

Image

He reminds me of Ron "Dr. No" Paul who was often the only person in the House to vote against bills and resolutions.

His belief in "natural law" I also find ... quixotic and problematic. (Gorsuch has also suggested he believes in such a thing).
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... aw/283311/
Interesting thing about that. He actually has a lower average per year of 8-1 dissents. Through 2020 He had 30 in 30 years. Justice Sotomayor has 14 in 12 years. Also, under the Martin-Quinn score, which measures where they fall on the ideological continuum, Justice Sotomayor is more extreme than Justice Thomas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court)

https://ballotpedia.org/Sonia_Sotomayor
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by ProfX »

Is there any validity to religious exemptions to vaccination?

If most religious leaders see no basis for it ... where does it come from?

Many faith leaders wary of religious exemptions for vaccine
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pop ... 21f1c2bf28

By the thousands, Americans have been seeking religious exemptions in order to circumvent COVID-19 vaccine mandates, but generally they are doing so without the encouragement of major denominations and prominent religious leaders.

From the Vatican, Pope Francis has defended the vaccines as “the most reasonable solution to the pandemic.” The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America declared categorically that its followers would not be offered religious exemptions. Robert Jeffress, the conservative pastor of a Baptist megachurch in Dallas, voiced similar sentiments.

“Since there is no credible biblical argument against vaccines, we have refused to offer exemptions to the handful of people who have requested them,” Jeffress told The Associated Press via email. “People may have strong medical or political objections to government-mandated vaccines, but just because those objections are strongly felt does not elevate them to a religious belief that should be accommodated.”

[snip]

Even before the pandemic, the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council made clear its stance – adopting a resolution in June 2019 calling for stronger government vaccination mandates.

“The Executive Council recognizes no claim of theological or religious exemption from vaccination for our members,” the resolution said.

[snip]

The claiming of religious exemptions frustrates some who suspect there are non-religious motivations.

“There is no distinctively Catholic objection to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines available,” said Michael Deem, assistant professor of bioethics and human genetics at the University of Pittsburgh.

[snip]

The relatively low vaccination rate among white evangelicals frustrates Curtis Chang, a theologian whose Redeeming Babel organization launched a Christians and the Vaccine project with evangelical and health-care groups, promoting the COVID-19 vaccines on biblical principles.

Seeking religious exemptions for many “is a hijacking of religion to justify political or cultural stances, and that’s very dangerous,” Chang said. “There is no genuine religious reason for seeking an exemption, especially from employer mandates.”

[snip][end]

What he said.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by bird »

Bludogdem wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:31 am Interesting thing about that. He actually has a lower average per year of 8-1 dissents. Through 2020 He had 30 in 30 years. Justice Sotomayor has 14 in 12 years. Also, under the Martin-Quinn score, which measures where they fall on the ideological continuum, Justice Sotomayor is more extreme than Justice Thomas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court)

https://ballotpedia.org/Sonia_Sotomayor
Define extreme, Republican.
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:31 am Interesting thing about that. He actually has a lower average per year of 8-1 dissents. Through 2020 He had 30 in 30 years. Justice Sotomayor has 14 in 12 years. Also, under the Martin-Quinn score, which measures where they fall on the ideological continuum, Justice Sotomayor is more extreme than Justice Thomas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court)

https://ballotpedia.org/Sonia_Sotomayor
What lying bullshit. Pretend the man that wants to overturn the right of gays to have sex isn't extreme.

And I looked into the Martin-Quinn scores. It doesn't really say anything. From a scholarly critique:
If you arrange the numbers in a line, you find that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (who vote together a lot) are toward one end of the line, and that Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who also vote together a lot, but don’t vote often with Scalia and Thomas) are toward the other end of the line.8 Martin and Quinn (and then, in this most recent paper, their co-authors) then go another step: they assume that every case before the Court presents a choice between a liberal vote and a conservative vote and that every Justice votes according to his preference for liberal or conservative outcomes. They then assume that the numbers produced by their system match those political preferences. So whatever number Justice Scalia gets in their system not only is the best number for helping to produce accurate simulations of the Court’s voting patterns, but also is a statement of his preference for conservative outcomes. That number is called his ideal point: a number that shows where, on a political scale, a Justice would like policy to be made.
The most important piece of data is that many cases don't fall into a conservative/liberal frame. I mean, in this dataset from 2014, Justice Ginsburg voted with Justice Scalia 70% of the time, and Justice Sotomayor voted with Justice Thomas 71% of the time!

Now, we have a Justice that wants to do away with the decisions like Griswold, Obergefell and Lawrence. Then you are stupid enough to say that Sotomayor is more extreme than Clarence Thomas.

Show me the votes that Sotomayor made that puts her on the liberal scale to equal what Thomas is doing. I'd say Sotomayor would have to be voting to do away with the capitalist system, or to nationalize all business, or to ban private ownership of guns, or to outlaw private ownership of land.

So make your case. What votes has Justice Sotomayor made that would make you say she is as far extreme to the left than Thomas is to the right?

Or just slink away as you usually do, greengrass.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Libertas »

All we need to know is these board cons approve of the end of all rights of all non-white straight Christian males.
I sigh in your general direction.
Glennfs
Posts: 10315
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Glennfs »

carmenjonze wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:11 am Self-loathing Black conservative extremists are the only sorts of people of African descent conservative whites like.

Probably because they’re as pliant as you are, regardless of white con they’re lackeys of.
Black liberals who only think and believe what they are told by their liberal overseers are the only blacks liberals like
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:40 pm Black liberals who only think and believe what they are told by their liberal overseers are the only blacks liberals like
You can’t even come up with your own ideas or your own thoughts or your own lines.

Like a typical white conservative man, all you’re capable of is theft, imitation, and conformity.

Do better.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by Bludogdem »

It occurs to me that few if any here actually understand the rigid nature of Justice Thomas’ judicial philosophy. In particular his belief that “substantive due process” is an oxymoronic fraud. So, in his mind, all cases settled by “substantive due process” are problematic.

What few understand is that he would prefer the court look to the “privileges and immunities” clause to establish rights.

Here is a dissent that defines his views on “privileges and immunities”.


Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—97

RITA L. SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
et al., PETITIONERS v. BRENDA
ROE and ANNA DOE etc.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 17, 1999]

Justice Thomas, with whom the Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s dissent. I write separately to address the majority’s conclusion that California has violated “the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State.” Ante, at 12. In my view, the majority attributes a meaning to the Privileges or Immunities Clause that likely was unintended when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted and ratified.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Unlike the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, which have assumed near-talismanic status in modern constitutional law, the Court all but read the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the Constitution in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873). There, the Court held that the State of Louisiana had not abridged the Privileges or Immunities Clause by granting a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business to one company. Id., at 59—63, 66. The Court reasoned that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not intended “as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State.” Id., at 74. Rather the “privileges or immunities of citizens” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment were limited to those “belonging to a citizen of the United States as such.” Id., at 75. The Court declined to specify the privileges or immunities that fell into this latter category, but it made clear that few did. See id., at 76 (stating that “nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,” including “those rights which are fundamental,” are not protected by the Clause).

Unlike the majority, I would look to history to ascertain the original meaning of the Clause.1 At least in American law, the phrase (or its close approximation) appears to stem from the 1606 Charter of Virginia, which provided that “all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies … shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities … as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realme of England.” 7 Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws 3788 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909). Other colonial charters contained similar guarantees.2 Years later, as tensions between England and the American Colonies increased, the colonists adopted resolutions reasserting their entitlement to the privileges or immunities of English citizenship.3

The colonists’ repeated assertions that they maintained the rights, privileges and immunities of persons “born within the realm of England” and “natural born” persons suggests that, at the time of the founding, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” (and their counterparts) were understood to refer to those fundamental rights and liberties specifically enjoyed by English citizens, and more broadly, by all persons. Presumably members of the Second Continental Congress so understood these terms when they employed them in the Articles of Confederation, which guaranteed that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Art. IV. The Constitution, which superceded the Articles of Confederation, similarly guarantees that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1.

Justice Bushrod Washington’s landmark opinion in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3, 230) (CCED Pa. 1825), reflects this historical understanding. In Corfield, a citizen of Pennsylvania challenged a New Jersey law that prohibited any person who was not an “actual inhabitant and resident” of New Jersey from harvesting oysters from New Jersey waters. Id., at 550. Justice Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, rejected the argument that the New Jersey law violated Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. He reasoned, “we cannot accede to the proposition … that, under this provision of the constitution, the citizens of the several states are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state, merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citizens.” Id., at 552. Instead, Washington concluded:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; … and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; … the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Id. at 551—552.

Washington rejected the proposition that the Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteed equal access to all public benefits (such as the right to harvest oysters in public waters) that a State chooses to make available. Instead, he endorsed the colonial-era conception of the terms “privileges” and “immunities,” concluding that Article IV encompassed only fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States.4 Id., at 552.

Justice Washington’s opinion in Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion. See Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (referring to a Member’s “obligatory quotation from Corfield”). For just one example, in a speech introducing the Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard explained the Privileges or Immunities Clause by quoting at length from Corfield.5 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866). Furthermore, it appears that no Member of Congress refuted the notion that Washington’s analysis in Corfield undergirded the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.6

That Members of the 39th Congress appear to have endorsed the wisdom of Justice Washington’s opinion does not, standing alone, provide dispositive insight into their understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. Nevertheless, their repeated references to the Corfield decision, combined with what appears to be the historical understanding of the Clause’s operative terms, supports the inference that, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, people understood that “privileges or immunities of citizens” were fundamental rights, rather than every public benefit established by positive law. Accordingly, the majority’s conclusion–that a State violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause when it “discriminates” against citizens who have been domiciled in the State for less than a year in the distribution of welfare benefit appears contrary to the original understanding and is dubious at best.

As The Chief Justice points out, ante at 1, it comes as quite a surprise that the majority relies on the Privileges or Immunities Clause at all in this case. That is because, as I have explained supra, at 1—2, The Slaughter-House Cases sapped the Clause of any meaning. Although the majority appears to breathe new life into the Clause today, it fails to address its historical underpinnings or its place in our constitutional jurisprudence. Because I believe that the demise of the Privileges or Immunities Clause has contributed in no small part to the current disarray of our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, I would be open to reevaluating its meaning in an appropriate case. Before invoking the Clause, however, we should endeavor to understand what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that it meant. We should also consider whether the Clause should displace, rather than augment, portions of our equal protection and substantive due process jurisprudence. The majority’s failure to consider these important questions raises the specter that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by the “predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court.” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502 (1977).

I respectfully dissent.

Notes
1. Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873. See, e.g., Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision); D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341—351 (1985) (same); 2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089—1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights); M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights); B. Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution 46—71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights); Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521—536 (1989) (same); J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause “was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists … or in any specific way gives directions for finding”); R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866); R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot).

2. See 1620 Charter of New England, in 3 Thorpe, at 1839 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects”); 1622 Charter of Connecticut, reprinted in 1 id., at 553 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties and Immunities of free and natural Subjects”); 1629 Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 3 id., at 1857 (guaranteeing the “liberties and Immunities of free and naturall subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maine, in 3 id., at 1635 (guaranteeing “[l]iberties[,] Francheses and Immunityes of or belonging to any of the naturall borne subjects”); 1632 Charter of Maryland, in 3 id., at 1682 (guaranteeing “Privileges, Franchises and Liberties”); 1663 Charter of Carolina, in 5 id., at 2747 (holding “liberties, franchises, and privileges” inviolate); 1663 Charter of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in 6 id., at 3220 (guaranteeing “libertyes and immunityes of ffree and naturall subjects”); 1732 Charter of Georgia, in 2 id., at 773 (guaranteeing “liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects”).

3. See, e.g., The Massachusetts Resolves, in Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis 56 (E. Morgan ed. 1959) (“Resolved, That there are certain essential Rights of the British Constitution of Government, which are founded in the Law of God and Nature, and are the common Rights of Mankind–Therefore, …
Resolved that no Man can justly take the Property of another without his Consent . . . this inherent Right, together with all other essential Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of the People of Great Britain have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta”); The Virginia Resolves, id., at 47—48 (“[T]he Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England”); 1774 Statement of Violation of Rights, 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 68 (1904) (“[O]ur ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England … Resolved … [t]hat by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered or lost any of those rights”).

4. During the first half of the 19th century, a number of legal scholars and state courts endorsed Washington’s conclusion that the Clause protected only fundamental rights. See, e.g., Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harr. & M. 535, 554 (Md. 1797) (Chase, J.) (Clause protects property and personal rights); Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465, 470 (1821) (Clause protects the “absolute rights” that “all men by nature have”); 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 71—72 (1836) (Clause “confined to those [rights] which were, in their nature, fundamental”). See generally Antieau, Paul’s Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four, 9 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 18—21 (1967) (collecting sources).

5. He also observed that, while, Supreme Court had not “undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities,” Washington’s opinion gave “some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

6. During debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Members of Congress also repeatedly invoked Corfield to support the legislation. See generally, Siegan, Supreme Court’s Constitution, at 46—56. The Act’s sponsor, Senator Trumble, quoting from Corfield, explained that the legislation protected the “fundamental rights belonging to every man as a free man, and which under the Constitution as it now exists we have a right to protect every man in.” Cong. Globe, supra, at 476. The Civil Rights Act is widely regarded as the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., J. tenBroek, Equal Under Law 201 (rev. ed. 1965) (“The one point upon which historians of the Fourteenth Amendment agree, and, indeed, which the evidence places beyond cavil, is that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to place the constitutionality of the Freedmen’s Bureau and civil rights bills, particularly the latter, beyond doubt”).




Toolbox

Law about... Articles from Wex
Legislation
Statutory Authorities



SPONSORED LISTINGS

Jeremiah Justin Denslow
Jeremiah Justin Denslow
PREMIUM
(513) 273-0577
Cincinnati, OH
DUI & DWI, Criminal Law
Website
Call
Email
Tonya VanBenschoten
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm It occurs to me that few if any here actually understand the rigid nature of Justice Thomas’ judicial philosophy.
He's a fascist, and so is your blathering defense of him, Mensa member.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:23 am So, amazingly, Politico has figured out what

“ Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New
York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic.
They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19
vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.”

actually means.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/154 ... wsrc%5Etfw
And you really think this guy needs Politico to copyedit and explain away what the man actually wrote.

Okay.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:41 pm It occurs to me that few if any here actually understand the rigid nature of Justice Thomas’ judicial philosophy. In particular his belief that “substantive due process” is an oxymoronic fraud. So, in his mind, all cases settled by “substantive due process” are problematic.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So much bullshit. If his judicial philosophy is so damned rigid, then why doesn't he want to revisit Loving v. Virginia along with Obergefell, Griswold and Lawrence?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just like all the conservatives, their ideology is rigid and based upon sound conservative principles, unless they don't like something about it, then it changes completely.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by ProfX »

Rigidity of thought is common to many fundamentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege ... ies_Clause

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel is associated with the clause.

[snip]

In his explanation of the scope of the rights protected by the clause, Justice Washington included the right to travel through and reside in states, the right to claim benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay.

[snip]

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified two years later, in 1868, and still the Supreme Court had not spoken. The following year, on November 1 of 1869, the Court finally addressed this issue. In the case of Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1868), the Court said the following:

It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.

[snip][end]

All in all, seems like most legal scholars conclude what this clause basically means is if you are from state A and moving to state B, and have not yet become a state resident/citizen, the state can't prevent you from owning property, driving on its roads, using its parks ... discriminate in any way against your fundamental freedoms as a U.S. citizen. Just because they don't like the state you're from.

It doesn't mean anything any state guarantees its citizens apply to other states. Just because Colorado legalized marijuana doesn't mean Montana has to for people from Colorado (or anybody, really). And similarly just because New York lets you have an abortion at 20 weeks doesn't mean Mississippi has to for New Yorkers (or anybody else).

Yeah, much as I'd like to, I'm not sure I see how this could become a basis for abortion rights, though I certainly see its necessity. Residents of New Jersey can sometimes be treated harshly by other states. :D

Thus, I conclude, Justice Thomas is entitled to his beliefs, the problem is once again few people share them. Most importantly, even other lawyers, justices, and prior and current people on SCOTUS. :mrgreen:

One can stare into their crystal ball and see how 5 justices on this SCOTUS would suddenly re-align in support of abortion rights if P & I was used to argue their basis instead of substantive due process --- my Magic 8-Ball is very hazy. I don't see it. Just because Thomas would prefer things be done that way in his dissents. This seems to make out Thomas' objections to many rights purely procedural rather than moral, and I again don't see that, i.e. "gay marriage would be fine if it was argued for differently." Nothing I see in his opinions suggest the court would uphold abortion if it was considered as an unenumerated right under P & I, only that it could be looked at this way - and in fact some comments suggest he thinks the outcome would not change.

That said, the right to travel is definitely part of it, as previous courts have ruled, and I DO see that being important in stopping states from preventing their residents to travel and get abortions elsewhere.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': b

Post by bird »

ProfX wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:29 am As I noted earlier, Scalia sometimes distanced himself from Thomas. The relationship was not that ... smooth.

Clarence Thomas Has His Own Constitution
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... nstitution

[snip]

The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesn’t respect the Court’s precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. It’s an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.

Thomas just turned sixty-eight years old, and reports of his impending retirement briefly surfaced before his wife shot them down as “bogus.” Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Thomas would allow any Democrat to choose his successor. Shortly after Scalia died, Thomas asked his first question in oral argument in more than a decade, but it’s highly unlikely that he will take on Scalia’s role as the pugnacious conservative in the Court’s public sessions. Rather, Thomas will continue his own way, increasingly alone, as the Court, for the first time in two generations, moves to the left. As for Thomas’s place on the Court, it’s difficult to improve on Scalia’s analysis, which I heard him give at a synagogue a decade ago. Scalia was asked about how his judicial philosophy differed from Thomas’s. “I’m an originalist,” Scalia said, “but I’m not a nut.”

[snip][end]

There are numerous 8-1 dissents in court cases where Thomas is the only dissenter.

Like this case in January.
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ee-1670999

Image

He reminds me of Ron "Dr. No" Paul who was often the only person in the House to vote against bills and resolutions.

His belief in "natural law" I also find ... quixotic and problematic. (Gorsuch has also suggested he believes in such a thing).
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... aw/283311/
Re: natural law iirc, Montesquieu wrote of natural law. Imo, the problem is that there is no such thing as natural law beyond the “laws” described by physics and chemistry. Anything else is of necessity the creation of man and therefore limited to the body politic in whatever form it is in. Jefferson’s rhetoric does not hold water. Claiming deity as rationale for political belief structures is useful agitprop but is of necessity undefined and undefining.
Post Reply