Justice Thomas' Theory Of Rights And Government

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:03:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Atrios, Adam Serwer criticizes Clarence Thomas for saying this:

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.” “I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Taken in isolation, I think you could use Thomas' statement as a starting point for progressive government. Think about it. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the citizenry to the country? How about, for one, contributing their fair share to the prosperity of the whole country. How about the rich have the responsibility and obligation to the nation to contribute to the Common Good? Of course, that is not what Thomas means:

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?” He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, I could apply Thomas' thinking to the Masters of the Universe and their belief that they have right to be country club members, have million dollar bonuses, and oh BTW, low taxes on income, investments, and their multi-million dollar estates.

Because what Thomas is REALLY saying is that some rights matter to him and some do not.

In Atrios' post, he writes:

Does [Thomas] even know what the [C]onstitution is for?

Atrios seems to be arguing that the Constitution exists to protect rights. The Constitution does indeed protect individual rights, mostly in the Bill of Rights. But first and foremost, the Constitution establishes a system of government.

Justice Thomas pretends to have disdain for rights, but his entire approach is imbued with the unquestioning view that property rights are inalienable and that any government action in which the property rights of individuals are impaired is a gross violation of natural law and our theory of government.

In this era of "Tea Parties," it is quite ironic to hear Justice Thomas, who no doubt fully believes in the Tea Party ideology, complain about the "virtual nobility" accorded those with "grievances." I have no doubt he believes the "Tea Parties" are noble, because he does not respect the system of government created by our Constitution.

[UPDATE - Kagro had the same thought as I did, while Josh Orton ignores this point.]

Speaking for me only

< The Masters Of The Universe Strike Again | Goldman Makes Bucketfuls >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Justice Thomas' Theory Of Rights And Government | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I can't tell whether Thomas is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:10:10 PM EST

really disinterested in his job, or just what other people think about how he does his job.

I am glad to read that he thinks that "it would be illegitimate, I think, and a violation of my oath to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision-making process." This doesn't seem to have any bearing on his extremist decisions, though.

FWIW, I actually agree with him about dishwashers. You really learn to appreciate them after you live without them for a while.

That's what my exes say (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:15:44 PM EST

. . .


: lol (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:26:45 PM EST

Were you the dishwasher?

: badum-CHING (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:26:44 PM EST

: Heh (none / 0) (#20)
by CST on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:36:04 PM EST

Then there is "I could live without a dishwasher" or "I could live with you" but I could not "live without a dishwasher with you".

: Oh, my...exes...! (none / 0) (#22)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:38:40 PM EST

FWIW, he sounds like he's getting (none / 0) (#14)
by scribe on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:28:15 PM EST

his dodder on, but good.


ummmm K (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:36:56 PM EST

"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned."


Huh? (none / 0) (#36)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:24:39 PM EST

Since when do dishwashers have picture windows?

I suggest he go to a laundromat for a full spectrum of an evening's entertainment.


Then he'll be asking why (none / 0) (#41)
by scribe on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:42:28 PM EST

all the washers spin the same way.


or wondering out loud (none / 0) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:54:05 PM EST

if the light stays on when you close the refrigerator.


: The ticket... (none / 0) (#51)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:30:16 PM EST

only way to know for sure is to get inside and stay there while someone else closes the door.
I'd sure like to know the results.

sounds to me (none / 0) (#42)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:52:15 PM EST

like his cheese has slid off his cracker.


I doubt he empties the dishwasher (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:00:06 PM EST

of those miraculously clean dishes and puts them away.


Today's pedantic lesson (none / 0) (#23)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:51:50 PM EST

"Uninterested" means not interested.

"Disinterested" means neutral or impartial.

The first time you file a motion to disqualify a judge, you'll thank me for this!


Irecommend not doing that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:53:26 PM EST

unless the most extreme circumstances arise.

Your motion will be denied and you will definitely lose the case.

then your hope is the appeals court will agree with you and smack down the trial judge. that will happen only in the most extreme cases.


: War story: statutory peremptory (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:37:40 PM EST

challenge in presiding dept. of judge to whom case was assigned for trial. Disallowed because the lawyer left the courtroom to call his buddies for advice (pre-cell phones). So we go to the assigned judge who was so pissed at that lawyer he wouldn't let him cross-examine our expert. Sd. we'd heard all that.

My dictionary says (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:58:07 PM EST

that "disinterested" carries both meanings. Maybe Black's disagrees.


Well (none / 0) (#34)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:20:55 PM EST

if you weren't studying to be a lawyer I wouldn't have bothered offering the advice. But make of it what you will.


: OK, from Black's (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:28:01 PM EST

disinterested, adj. Free from bias, prejudice, or partiality; not having a pecuniary interest " disinterested witness". -- disinterest, disinterestedness, n.
So you have done me a favor. If ever I have to use "disinterested" in a legal setting, I will remember that it carries this meaning, primarily.

So, was Evan Bayh's usage correct? (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:01:32 PM EST

I think he sd. he is "agnostic" about universal health care.


sigh... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:57:46 PM EST

There is a Bill of Rights.
There is no "Bill of Responsibilities".
There is no "Bill of Obligations".

Perhaps, just perhaps, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were on to something and Justice Thomas is full of it.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be (none / 0) (#28)
by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:08:14 PM EST

I can argue that technology is protected, since nothing under the Constitution deals with it. But laws have been passed by Congress, clearly envisioned by the Constitution, that do address technology.

Likewise, twenty seven times there have been issues of the gravest importance which have asked to modify the Constitution. Since we have a bill of rights, we can just as easily add a bill of responsibilities and a bill of obligations at a Constitutional convention.

Being a strict constructionist, Justice Thomas is illiterate and cannot read the Constitution. But should his ideas gain a super majority of followers, they can be added, despite his inability to understand or comprehend the document.


The Patents and copyrights provision (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST

It seems to me (none / 0) (#35)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:21:00 PM EST

that the Bill of Rights further expands the concept on which the nation was founded. We are supposed to be protected from tyranny.

What Thomas is saying is pure puritan hogwash that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution. He just wants us all to behave in a certain lemming-like manner. Go for it Clarence.

"Illiterate ... an inability to understand or comprehend the (Constitution)". And how!


Wow! (none / 0) (#40)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:37:18 PM EST

Two people that have used the word "illiterate" to describe Justice Thomas. I don't agree with Justice Thomas on much, but I do accord him some respect. And when I do disagree with him I refrain from using words like "illiterate" and just use the word "wrong". It's far more accurate.


: Websters (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:26:52 PM EST

offers this as a third definition of "illiterate":
" ...showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge... "
Sounds like Clarence to me.

: I use Illiterate in a very specific sense (none / 0) (#58)
by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:14:57 AM EST

As in being unable to read.
Strict constructionists have a dogma that says any document - including the Constitution - is covered by the "four corners" doctrine. Everything must me limited to the text of the document, no Federalist papers, etc. If the document does not say it, it doesn't exist.
The problem with this is it is EXACTLY opposed to the creation of the Bill of Rights. The very idea of a "Bill of Rights" was opposed by the New Hampshire delegation for precisely the reason that we see laid before us here: that later on, someone would claim that these rights were all there are, and that the people had no other rights.
As a result, we have the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Since this notice IS posted in the text of the document, all strict constructionists are illiterate.

Great post (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:30:03 PM EST

Thomas does not have respect for our system of govt. And his statement in isolation could be a starting point for a progressive govt. Two excellent points.

(Probably as good as the long promised Thomas opinion analysis I must have missed?)

: I knew you would call me out (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:56:08 PM EST

Should never have written this post . . .

well, (none / 0) (#1)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:07:47 PM EST

do people have a "right" to air conditioning and cars?

No but they have a right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:12:00 PM EST

to spew nonsense.


No (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:14:14 PM EST

Nor do they have a right to not have their income, estates and investments taxed.

The "Tea Parties" argue that they do have such a right.

What's your view on that?


They have no rights (none / 0) (#27)
by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:59:10 PM EST

...and neither do you.

You have no States rights unless you are before a State court.

You have no Federal rights unless you are before a Federal court.

You have no rights whatsoever unless a judge in one of those courts says you do, and only to the extent they say so.

For strict constructionists, such as Clarence Thomas, who cannot read, the Constitution may be full of all manner of "mystical" rights.

Teabaggers can argue they are protected by the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


They have just as much a right (none / 0) (#29)
by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:14:29 PM EST

to argue for repeal of the Sixteenth amendment as we do for decriminalization of marijuana.


: Let them argue it (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:16:13 PM EST

But do so honestly.

"Air conditioning" (none / 0) (#31)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:15:48 PM EST

is printing in Bold type, I didn't do that - you did.

I believe the government has a right to tax income. What I don't believe is in the "right" to things such as air conditioners and certain standards of living (since that is so vague) though I do believe in Living Wage.


Counterpoint to (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:16:49 PM EST

country clubs, Porches and bonuses.


Who said (none / 0) (#37)
by bocajeff on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:27:05 PM EST

Anyone has a "right" to bonuses and country clubs? Did he say that?


: His philosophy says it (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:34:39 PM EST

: What Thomas (none / 0) (#60)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:19:12 AM EST

seems to be saying is that he tires of people complaining about low pay and/or unemployment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of (none / 0) (#45)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:59:59 PM EST

happiness. You have a right to pursue air conditioners if they make you happy.

That's the conservatives' trick - they say "you don't have a right to x" something on which we actually can all pretty much agree (with some exceptions) - but what they mean is "you don't have a right to pursue x" either.

Unless of course you are a member of an elite clique that they support and then you have exclusive rights to both pursue and have at the expense of everyone else.


Wrong, that is (none / 0) (#54)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:47:33 PM EST

the progressive trick. what is your view on guns? SUVs? School choice?


Guns - I am not a prohibitionist. (none / 0) (#56)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 07:34:19 PM EST

SUVs - not a prohibitionist.

School choice - if you are talking about "choice" being me paying for you to endoctrinate your kid with religious views on the taxpayer's dime I am against it. We have plenty of churches and they are plenty well funded and free to do that own their own dime and your kid's own time.

You want to pursue your religion as a part of your happiness equation - no problem - you want me to pay for it - problem.

But you totally fail to understand the most important question of pursuit - as do some modern Dems in their own way at times - but they pale in comparison to conservatives on this issue. The idea is that we give equal footing under our laws and our government for me to pursue my happiness as would be afforded some priviledged insider. It is pretty simple. We should not provide an unfair advantage to some small few in this pursuit. Your religious "choice" question is a perfect example of what I would consider an unfair advantage. I won't go into my own personal religious views, but as you can imagine given the number of religions in this country, I would not be alone if any one religion achieved dominance and got all of the public school funding.


: Where did I even mention (none / 0) (#57)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:23:35 AM EST

religion? You must have some problem with religion. I subscribe to the Sweden model: The parents tell the gov't what school their kids are attending and the gov't sends the money to that school. Sounds good? I hope you feel better with your religion screed above.

Of course you know the Tea Parties are (none / 0) (#53)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:45:43 PM EST

not about that. It is about taxpayer money used on bailout and stimuli. I cannot think of a person who has been to a tea party against paying taxes.

But then if you are casting aspersions like that, then you want all income, investments and estates taken by the gov't.


He didn't (none / 0) (#59)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:17:06 AM EST

say that. He said taxed not confiscated.

So I'll use your tactic and say that you appear to believe that ANY tax on investemnts, etc. is too much.


Fine (none / 0) (#62)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 09:57:50 AM EST

Taxed monies are not confiscated. Sounds like to me you want all turned over, confiscated, taxed at 100%, all earned monies voluntarily donated with the force of the police power of the state, etc, to the gov't. That was BTDs tactic, btw.

How about this, show in the Constitution where the federal gov't has authority for stimuli or bailouts. Much less guaranteeing the warranty on your GM vehicle, but that is another issue.


You are so (none / 0) (#63)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:54:16 PM EST

full of it.

Your Constitution screed is directly out of right-wing alley - 'if it doesn't say it specifically in the Constitution then it can't be'

Jeez. You've so read from the script.


: I take it you (none / 0) (#64)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:28:05 PM EST

can't find it in the Constitution either. How about half way, how can the gov't warranty my gm?

Well, obviously (none / 0) (#8)
by eric on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:18:38 PM EST

he isn't arguing that people really think they have a "right" in a legal sense to these things. He is just being a grumpy conservative trying to tell us all how lucky we are and how we should stop whining and worry more about getting back to that 1950's utopia when everything was just great.


you mean when he (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:26:46 PM EST

would have had to sit in the back of the bus.
yeah, those were the days alright.


Thomas doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by eric on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:31:07 PM EST

seem to remember that part. Crucifix and that flag, that he remembers.


: yeah (none / 0) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:34:02 PM EST

a crucifix and a flag in every classroon. omg.
I like this part:
"I tend to be morose sometimes,"
um, duh.

Supposedly his book is full of resentment (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:33:33 PM EST

for affirmative action. There's a scholarly book to be written about that.


: yeah (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:34:26 PM EST

how ironic is that?

: Thomas (none / 0) (#61)
by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:20:49 AM EST

wants to pull the ladder up after he's used it.

His whole (none / 0) (#4)
by eric on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:13:46 PM EST

attitude is one of a resentful conservative. He remembers fondly the crucifix and the American flag in the classroom. He thinks people should quit whining about having "rights" to things. Rephrased, "quit complaining you hippies, just be lucky you have a dishwasher!" He definitely has a chip on his shoulder. It is all so familiar.

Sure (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:15:02 PM EST

I just think I can use his thinking to say "quit complaining you millionaires!"


Yes (none / 0) (#9)
by eric on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:21:26 PM EST

I like yours better. I don't think Thomas would apply your "Bill of Obligations" equally, however. Heh.


: Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:22:31 PM EST

But the point is there to be made.
As I note in my update, Kagro spotted the same point.

I think his problem is (none / 0) (#15)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:29:04 PM EST

with "virtual nobility". as opposed to, you know, actual nobility.

Bill of Obligations? (none / 0) (#44)
by shoephone on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:55:22 PM EST

Sheesh.

Why does Clarence Thomas hate America?

I wonder (none / 0) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 05:23:02 PM EST

if he considers watching exotic porn of the type he wanted to discuss with Anita Hill a right?
I do. but I wonder if he does.