Thomas Makes My Case

I have written many times about how the SCOTUS has crapped on the spirit of their position……and Thomas is making it more likely something needs done.

Him and his wife have got politically involved on several occasions…..involved in stuff that he has had a hand in crafting law. And now he proves my point….the next attack is on ‘marriage equality’ and gay rights.

Here is Thomas’ latest….

Attached to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday was a solo concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested he’d like to also reconsider cases involving contraception, same-sex marriage, and other private sexual conduct. The pundit consensus has since deemed the chances of the majority of the high court ruling against birth control and gay rights as pretty low, but in her latest op-ed for the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus puts out a red flag over dismissing that possibility. The rights protected in those other mentioned cases are said to fall—just as abortion was, until last week—under a privacy umbrella within the “substantive due process” protections of the 14th Amendment. Marcus concedes that no other justice joined Thomas in taking aim at those other cases, so she poses the question on everyone’s mind: “Should everyone calm down?”

Her answer: “Yes—and no.” She notes it’s true that contraception and same-sex marriage just doesn’t touch the same nerve as abortion does. But she also points out the majority opinion highlighted that, when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there was no right to abortion recognized—and the same applies to those other cases, meaning the rights they protect could also be threatened in the future. “Thomas may be alone now, but who knows who will be willing to join him down the road?” Marcus writes, noting that what “starts as an extreme, outlier view can migrate into the conservative mainstream.” “When you pull on a thread, an entire garment can unravel,” she adds. “Thomas would like to see that happen, and he is tugging, hard, at the fabric of constitutional law. Who knows what will be left when he is done.”

Read her piece in its entirety here.

Thomas needs to recuse himself from any and all rulings that involve gay rights….he is biased and cannot not make a unbiased ruling.

If he cannot bring himself to recuse then I say impeach him and anyone else that shows a hatred for the Constitution.

But how could we impeach a sitting SCOTUS judge?

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who explains to Molly and listeners what it would take to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, why she believes the conservative justices lied under oath, and what states can do ASAP to protect women.

“It’s so strange because we all knew this was coming and it still feels like just being punched in the gut. It’s devastating. It’s outrageous. I am personally outraged for the fact that the Supreme Court is no longer seeing American women as full people,” Griswold tells Molly Jong-Fast. “I support looking into the impeachment of several of these justices.”

“This is a fabulous notion, but I mean, how would that even work?” asks Molly.

“Basically Congress can impeach and there has to be a basis to do so. They have to have committed some type of legal offense,” explains Griswold, noting that she believes there have been offenses committed by some of the conservative judges to warrant said impeachment.

She points to Clarence Thomas as the first example: “Justice Thomas, who is now saying that marriage equality, that birth control, that all these rights suddenly are at risk, should be impeached for his involvement in election-related cases. He has breached the public’s trust. His wife literally was involved in the attempted violent overthrow of the U.S. government.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-how-to-impeach-a-supreme-court-justice

I say impeach the bastards!

Then impose terms limits ion judges….no body should have a job for life.

I love the idea to hold the judges accountable for their words and deeds…..but I see a problem…the Congress does not work for the people of this country they are picked and employed by political hacks and any action against a judge would go through the Congress they will do nothing to protect the people only their asses.

Thomas and his 5 cohorts are nothing more than political hacks and none deserve the title ‘your honor’….

Any opinions on this this?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Pentagon Does The Right Thing

In my opinion for the wrong reasons…..

The Pentagon has come out on the side of ‘reproductive rights’….(for now)

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Friday that the Pentagon is working to ensure that members of the military, their families and its civilian employees will still have access to “reproductive health care” after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The Defense Department currently does not have a policy to accommodate service members or employees who are seeking an abortion but are stationed in a state that has outlawed abortion, Politico reports.

  • Federal law currently allows military medical facilities to provide abortions only in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger, while the military’s health program is allowed to cover abortions at private facilities for those same reasons only.

What they’re saying: “Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families,” Austin said in a statement on Friday.

  • “I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force. The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” he added.

The big picture: The court’s decision may further strain the military’s recruitment efforts — already hampered by low employment and other factors as potential recruits may fear being stationed in states that have banned abortions, according to Bloomberg.

  • Women make up around 20% of the military’s 1.3 million-member active-duty force, and 95% of them are of reproductive age, according to Stars and Stripes citing department statistics.

(axios.com)

Ain’t that some kind of special?

My thoughts is that this will be a recruiting tool…..I mean the Pentagon has a hard time doing anything about sexual assaults, rape and such, in the military why else would they be so concerned about reproductive rights?

Next this ought o make conservs lose their under productive little minds.  (Something that would give me hours of enjoyment)

But here is a thought for them….punish the Pentagon by slashing their budget by $250 billion and use the cash for infrastructure and social programs.

That is just my wishful thinking for that will never happen….the M-IC and its oligarchs will slip lots of cash to our Congress to soothe their troubled minds.

This is nothing more than a news trap….in other words bullsh*t.

Any thoughts of this little piece of theater?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

All That ‘Breaking News’

This draft was written before the mass shooting in Uvalde and now the SCOTUS ruling…it had to wait for the news to play out.  I apologize for the delay.

I have avoided the MSM since the invasion of Ukraine…..they are pro-war and anti-gun and they are trying to influence the country as best as they can….and their corporate masters continue to set the news….but many of us are disillusioned by the way the MSM handles the news.

A growing number of people are selectively avoiding important news stories such as the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the cost-of-living crisis, according to a report released on Tuesday.

While the majority of people surveyed consume news regularly, 38% said they often or sometimes avoid the news – up from 29% in 2017 – the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said in its annual Digital News Report. Around 36% – particularly those under 35 – say that the news lowers their mood.

Trust in news is also declining, and is lowest in the United States. On average, 42% of people said they trust most news most of the time; that figure has fallen in almost half the countries in the report and risen in seven.

“Large numbers of people see the media as subject to undue political influence, and only a small minority believe most news organisations put what’s best for society ahead of their own commercial interest,” wrote Reuters Institute Director Rasmus Kleis Nielsen in the report, which is based on an online survey of 93,432 people, conducted in 46 markets.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-06-14/more-people-are-avoiding-the-news-and-trusting-it-less-report-says

Then there is the manure of ‘breaking news’….

Since the conflict in Ukraine began I have been bitching about the use of the news tag of ‘breaking news’……CNN was the worse offender….it was breaking news for 12 hours, the same report time after time…..of course I have written about this….

Ukraine And The Media

The Reporting On Ukraine

Please read those and see what I am on about….

With the recent mass shooting this story got lost in the headlines….

If you’re a regular CNN viewer, you’re also intimately familiar with one of its most well-known chyrons: the bright-red “Breaking News” banner that seems to accompany a good number of its newscasts. No more, says new network chief Chris Licht, who’s now issued an edict on cutting down on the banner’s use. Axios reports that on Thursday, Licht, 50, informed staff there are now stricter parameters on when to use the “Breaking News” label; updated guidelines have been written by Sam Feist, the network’s DC bureau chief. “Breaking News” has to “mean something BIG is happening,” Licht wrote in a memo to employees. “We are truth-tellers, focused on informing, not alarming our viewers. … The tenor of our voice holistically has to reflect that.”

The reasoning behind the shift, which CNBC calls “the first significant programming alteration” Licht has made, ties to his desire to pull CNN back from a more progressive-leaning, sometimes sensationalist approach to one more focused on hard news. That return to traditional journalism is also said to be a top priority for David Zaslav, the CEO of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery. The move is also intended to keep the “Breaking News” banner from become diluted by overuse. “It has become such a fixture on every channel and network that its impact has become lost on the audience,” Licht noted in his memo.

Licht, who took the helm of CNN in early May, was said to have held meetings with staff to try to suss out when and how the banner is employed, at which point he directed Feist to come up with an update on its usage for CNN’s stylebook. Licht noted he’s open to feedback and “tweaks” to the guidelines, but that “this is a great starting point.” He added in the memo: “We must be vital, relevant, and respected—and how we show up for our audiences, in every story, in every part of the country, and around the world, matters.” Deadline has his memo in its entirety.

Maybe someone was reading after all…..

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”