Justice Clarence Thomas, states' righter

Oh for God's sake..knock it off! No matter what a conservative says...you liberals pounce like a rabid dog!!! Not to mention the fact that you referred to him as a "black justice on the Supreme Court." That's a bit insensitive...isn't it? African American Supreme court justice would have been more appropriate....but he's conservative...so trash him anyway you can....you people are sick!!!!!

Clarence Thomas is nothing more than a worthless carrier pigeon for Karl Rove and the right-wing lunatic fringe.

Yes indeed......these European caucasion Americans certainly hate the word black. Go ahead and miss the point of the thread. The "southern strategy" by the republicans was exactly what Thomas rails about. The republicans wanted to offer states to decide the civil rights issue instead of the Feds. They wanted to pull in those southern states into the fold for their political gain. That just might answer one of the reasons blacks don't vote republican.

More proof that Frank James calls anyone he doesn't like a racist. Even a Black Supreme Court justice.

Frank,
.
This kind of writing should be beneath you. The doctrine of “states’ rights” was not the basis for Jim Crow laws. The “separate-but-equal” doctrine was. The States did not have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was only because the Supreme Court blew it in Plessy v. Ferguson that Jim Crow laws were permitted to stand.
.
Furthermore, Justice Thomas is correct in opposing the expansion of the “Commerce Clause” as justification for every act of Congress. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to give power to regulate “commerce” (i.e. commercial intercourse concerning goods) between states and between the United States and foreign countries - because of the antagonistic policies the States had toward each other regarding trade. Never in their wildest dreams did the framers of the Constitution believe or intend for the Commerce Clause to embrace within its scope things like private discrimination, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, wages, working conditions, or even purely intrastate exchanges of goods. In fact, it wasn’t until 1936 that the United States Supreme Court started to give the Commerce Clause anywhere near the wide-open interpretation that it has today.
.
Furthermore, you are wrong in suggesting that Justice Thomas would like to see the days of Jim Crow return. He simply believes that the more power has been taken and exercised by the federal government than has been authorized by the Constitution. He would tell you that, if you want all this expanse in power, one should amend the Constitution to authorize it - rather than just having the federal government steal it as it has.

Well Joe, where is it that the article trashes him? It even suggests that he's not predictably conservative. But you are so convinced that the writer is liberal and biased ("rabid dog") that you are the one showing bias. Where is Jeff to protest the bile and froth in your post?

Clarence Thomas wants to protect marijuana growers?! Cool!!!!!!!

Not sure how the dinosaur Frank James equates Jim Crow laws to being against armed agents going after people growing pot in their backyard. Oh well, some people choose to live in the past. Funny, I never saw any decisions that Clarence Thomas joined which suggests he longs for a return to our nation's fetid official racist past. Perhaps it is Mr. James who longs for its return, so he can have something real to complain about.

Frank, you're an idiot. What possible relevance does Justice Thomas' skin color have to his respect for the Tenth Amendment? It just goes to prove that libs are the true racists in this country. Leftists view everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING, through a racial lens.

Savages' article was decent, in suggesting that Thomas’ is an avid supporter of states' rights, regardless of whether that makes him come down on the so-called “conservative” or “liberal” side of a given case. Frank James' commentary on the article is bizarre. First, it's ludicrous to suggest that more state power as opposed to a strong federal government is analogous to supporting Jim Crow or slavery. I could just as easily argue that since the federal Constitution defined slaves as 3/5 of a person, supporters of a strong federal government are in favor of that. Second, Savages' article has little or nothing to do with race, but James bringing up Jim Crow and slavery has everything to do with race. Why? It seems to me that James has an axe to grind with Thomas, and is looking for a context, any context, to express it. I guess any mention of Thomas is context enough. I don't know how else to explain James’ bizarre, racially charged comments that have little or nothing to do with Savages' article.

The "strange justice" from Pinpoint GA.

He would have voted with the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson if he had the chance.

VastRightWing, you need to mind your manners. And don't stereotype.

Yeah, he might want to join you at the decaf coffee station, Flo. This is just more proof that Frank James is a rabble-rouser posing as a journalist who isn't afraid to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of his political rants.
p.s. Great job, Justice Thomas. If it angers the Franks and Flos you know you're doing the right thing.

Why would I be angry at Thomas, Jeff? He got one right last week, after all. He's just a lightweight. I really don't see where Frank James called him a racist; seems like all the commenters went along with Joe and didn't even read the article. Funny how you guys see it here, but not in that NYPost cartoon. Be sure your buddy VastRightWing Lunatic joins joe for some decaf.

I never said you were angry on this one, Flo. You're not. We both know you're referring to a post from days ago when you were trying to belittle people who disagreed with you. Call me crazy, but I think Clarence Thomas has a unique perspective on the black experience in America, considering that he is, indeed, black, was born poor and achieved greatness through diligence and hard work. The fact that Frank James tries to make a non-existent connection to slavery and Jim Crow from Thomas' belief in states' rights really says more about James than it does about Thomas.

Belittle people who disagree with me, Jeff? Like you do?
It was an infantile person who referred to the Presdient as a murderer (with no explanation of who he might have murdered). If I see the same post again, I'll do it again.

Frank took a cheap political shot at Thomas as he's obviously bored with race-baiting whites.

Of course, we live in this new Communist/Progressive country which demands no personal responsibility but, that's about to quickly change.

The storm is coming and you're not going to be ready for it no matter what you do.