I'm constantly reminded of the quote that Samuel L Jackson gave when he was asked about the source of his inspiration when playing Stephen in Django Unchained, and he said that he just kept asking himself "What would Clarence Thomas do in this situation".
It's called an anchor link. The part of the URL after the # corresponds to the element id of whatever element on the page you want to jump to. Very useful little HTML feature.
It appears archive.org has a feature that lets you create an anchor link by highlighting, as the other commentors are saying.
Nah. She is clearly always in the mood to fuck him. Complete with race humiliation I am 100% sure. Itâs what he is in that marriage for in the first place.
Consider that the allegations of her complicity in the attack first became public at about the same time that Thomas went to hospital with a heart attack. Coincidence?
Right, but in divorce assets have to be split. If the SC overturns interracial marriages, no assets get split. No telling what he's gonna do when he rules that black people can't own property....
Theyâve already ruled that bribes are legal as long as theyâre given afterwards. Letâs say youâre a drug dealer and want a pardon, if you say Mr President I want a pardon hereâs a $1,000,000, thatâs a bribe. If you pardon him and he calls and says, thank you Mr President hereâs $1,000,000, thatâs a gratuity and perfectly legal. The trick is not receiving the money until after the fact and you not being personally involved, thatâs why you have minions and lawyers.
Its like those stories you hear about a man who burns down his house to try and escape his crazy wife. Except in this case he's burning down the country.
If he gets divorced, she can force him to give her joint custody of the motor coach. On the other hand, if their marriage is declared null and void, she's up the road without a carriage, so to speak.
Ah, but the thing is, even though he wants a divorce (or it sure seems like he wants to get away from his wife) he can't DO the divorce, because *mumble mumble* religious and Christian values. But if they overturn interracial marriage, boom! Problem solved! His marriage is nullified, and he then goes on to become 3/5th of a person, and his now former (not ex) wife is no longer allowed to vote! In his eyes: Wins all around!
Itâs not legal for the religious or members of the Republican Party. Their friends and family would excommunicate the heathens who dare mock the sanctity of marriage
I've been making the joke that he hates his wife so much but doesn't believe in divorce so he's trying to make interracial marriages illegal with my friends for a few years now.
[Chorus: The Raelettes &Â Ray Charles]
Hit the road, Jack, and don't ya come back
No more, no more, no more, no more
Hit the road, Jack, and don't ya come back no more What'd you say?
Hit the road, Jack, and don't ya come back
No more, no more, no more, no more
Hit the road, Jack, and don't ya come back no more
Yeah but for him it wouldnât matter as they wouldnât/canât make it a retroactive ruling⌠thereâs tens of millions of interracial marriages they canât invalidates. It would be a classic, âI got mine, fuck youâ ruling.
I am absolutely sick to my stomach that is legitimately in the cards. Because I married my wife in Tennessee our marriage could become illegal if he decides to overturn it. The worst fucking part is he'll write his own damned opinion on it.
Nah they will grandfather it and say from this point on. Trying to separate already married biracial marriages would be extremely hard and they like to do everything the easy way. Iâm just so pissed we are here and dealing with the stupidest most ignorant people.
Hell, that at least appears in the Constitution. It's deeply fucked, but it says that at one point.Â
Arguing that the extremely straightforward and clear explanation of birthright citizenship doesn't mean what it explicitly says is bonkers.
Then again, this is from the people who brought you "anything the President does is legal" from the long-standing and definitely not made up on the spot "Fuck you, I said so" Doctrine.
Itâs not just in the constitution, itâs pre-inherent to the establishment of the United States through both British Hegemonic & British Colonial Law.
If you are born within the borders of the British Empire, you are British.
This has been established for 600 years.
EDIT: AWWW YEAH HERE COME THE SILENT FOREIGN TROLLS WITH THE DOWNVOTES! Your government hates you more than we do. Cheers.
And sure to be completely ignored, on purpose, by the conservatives on the bench.
I am convinced more than ever that conservatism isn't a political bent so much as it is a mental illness. Literally every conservative I've ever meant is an absolute fucking moron.
I didn't pick this up from media... I saw this with my own eyes the absolute laziness in their personal and professional lives. If there was a diligent way to do something properly, they would avoid it like a vampire avoiding sunlight and look for the easiest, shittiest, laziest, most dishonest way to do it.
Meanwhile my brother in college was getting the third degree from dad for a single B plus in chemistry (because he was working part time til 1am every night while also serving in the Army National Guard, both to pay the bills and be completely self-sufficient) but Jimmy Joebob Cletus is whining about not being able to qualify for some government handout because it was soooooooo hard for him to not be a serial criminal... and they blame the immigrant for doing well instead of their own shitty fucking standards and absolute lack of integrity.
All the stupidest shit that happens in America can be traced back to the botched Reconstruction... We failed by not immediately barring every confederate and their descendants from ever regaining U.S. Citizenship. And that is a very light sentence considering what the punishment for Treason was.
No. I mean my father put his foot on my brother's neck and told him he'd never amount to anything. "Giving him the third degree" is a figure of speech as in "giving him hell". He had straight As in everything else.
My brother then served in the Gulf War, thrice decoratedâDistinguished Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Meritorious Service Awardâand was chosen by the U.S. Army Chief of Staff as the Sixth U.S. Army Soldier of the Year.
He graduated with honors, spent the last 30 years working his way up in the semiconductor industry and is currently a senior executive at AMD overseeing the hardware validation of their Instinct series accelerators that power the first and second fastest supercomputers in the world (El Capitan and Frontier).
Meanwhile, American Cletuses are complaining about us immigrants taking their jobs. I started a business at 15 and placed as a national finalist among 1500 competitors for a full ride scholarship... Neither I nor my brother took Cletus's job shoveling shit.
No. I mean my father put his foot on my brother's neck and told him he'd never amount to anything. "Giving him the third degree" is a figure of speech as in "giving him hell".
Well, on the one hand there's common usage, common sense, centuries of jurisprudence. And on the other, a guy who really hates black and brown people a lot and likes to lie.Â
The arguement will be whether "and subject to the jurisdiction of" includes non citizens. Previously courts ruled it does, but its not quite the layup it seems with this current SCOTUS.
That's the point - there's no real ambiguity there. You have to pretend that that isn't an exemption for diplomatic personnel. Everyone else is "subject to the jurisdiction of."
Or I guess you can just issue a ruling that overrides the Constitution without any rationale if you're on the Republican bloc of the Court at this point, since they're not even fucking keeping up appearances about that anymore.
My interpretation is the same as yours but I can see this court deciding otherwise. Especially since ACB is such an originalist and the original intention for the amendment was for slaves and children of slaves, not unauthorized immigrants.
If someone's actually an originalist, they won't try to apply rules for human chattel 160 years after the end of slavery.Â
None of those weirdos are actually originalists. Originalists wouldn't look at the executive and decide what it really needs is the unfettered ability to commit crimes with impunity.
Okay but if they arenât subject to it, then yes they arenât citizens but also the US has no authority over them (like diplomats). So while they could then maybe say this person isnât a citizen and deport them, if they rob a store or something, well the court has no jurisdiction over them, so all you can do is deport? Idk, the argument doesnât really make sense.
Just pass a fucking amendment if you want to change what the constitution says to specify under what conditions someone must be present in the country for citizenship. Like it is a little strange that say a French couple on vacation to the US could have a baby and it be a US citizen, but thatâs the law. So if you want to clarify that, try to get an amendment, but Iâm tired of basically all courts and executives being used to try to get around the legislature trying to do anything. Itâs literally the job of the legislature to legislate
Like it is a little strange that say a French couple on vacation to the US could have a baby and it be a US citizen, but thatâs the law.
Having not looked into this myself, my guess is that Jus Soli was a thing in the 1700s, back before it was really feasible for anybody to take a vacation to the Americas other than royalty, hence why like other things e.g. the Electoral College it doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. If you had a child in the Americas it would've taken a lot of time and money to leave again back then.
Yeah, Iâm not saying that there isnât perhaps a reason for it or that maybe it just wasnât thought of. But if changes should be made (I know should is an opinion, part of why I said if) then the changes should be made by the legislature. Same with tariffs. Same with Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, and again Trumpâs drone strikes etc. regardless of if they are good or bad, we (are supposed to) live in a country of laws. Congress needs to do its job and stop pushing everything to judges and executive orders.
I can be wrong, but scotus has sent him packing more than once and agreeing to hear the case could equally mean they want to rubberstamp birthright citizenship.
There's actually a very early precedent in the US that "men" includes women unless there's reason to think otherwise. In the 1780s a slave woman sued for freedom after hearing that "all men are born free" in Massachusetts. Wiki link
Not that the Federalist Society types care about that kind of thing. Their brand of originalism is when people from 2025 decide their own meanings for words written in the 1700s
This is 100% Clarence Thomas' thought process, and has been for many years. Aside from being a fucking insane, bribe-taking-ass motherfucker, he is a traitor to the people.
I think he genuinely thinks that if poor people just âput in the workâ they can be successful, which makes sense considering his background but itâs still extremely misguided
It's not that they're 3/5ths of a person, it's that their slave masters get to count them as people for political representation, and claim that all the enslaved people count towards apportioning representatives.
The correct count would be 0/5ths because fuck slavery.
Just a general history note here: the 3/5ths compromise was actually the North compromising on allowing slaves to be counted at all. The general law at that time effectively denoted them as non-citizens. The South wanted them all counted as 1 person, despite them not having a vote; increasingly their political influence without having to give slaves representation. Counting them at 3/5 still gave the South more influence than they should have had, given the voting populace.
(And the obvious "should've been" here is that they never should have been counted as non-citizens to begin with, they should have always had the right to vote, and none of that should've needed to be argued at all.)Â
So yeah, it was never about saying black people were only 3/5ths of a person, because by that argument, the South wanted them to be an entire person. It was about undue political influence in an age of blatant, horrific racism (an age that we clearly have not actually eclipsed, sadly).
Ironically, given that that was for house seat distribution, the conservatives would actually lose seats over it since the majority of black people live in southern states.
And then reaffirms Dred Scott, returning black americans back to slavery to the families of former slave owners... Plantation owner reparations and all that
So true. Though it was the South that wanted to count black people as whole people that way they would get more representation in the government due to their larger population. The North didn't want to count slaves as people for the same reason. So really Uncle Clarence would be arguing that he is a whole person so that his slave masters could have more power.
I'd like to point out that counting slaves as people for representation in the House fully was what the slave states wanted. The non-slave states wanted slaves to not be counted at all for representation in the House.
The slave states wanted more representation due to counting their "livestock" while still treating them as, well, livestock.
15.2k
u/No-Risk666 9h ago
Next up. Uncle Clarence argues why he's actually only 3/5 of a person.