The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
NY Times
Does not embrace the constitution? I'd like to see the exact quote here. But if this is in fact true then I see absolutely no point for this man to continue to serve as the protector of a document he does not "embrace."
I'm also particularly disturbed by "Justice" Thomas's apparently infatuation with the military and indoctrination:
“Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”
Sounds like a Nazi wanna be. Shall we have students pledge their life to our Great Leader?
Then there's this:
“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?"
Well I suppose Mr. Thomas would have a stronger point if there were in fact parts of the US Constitution called the Bill or Responsibilities or Bill of Obligations. But there aren't. Well no that's not entirely true since most of the document which Thomas appears to have problems "embracing" spells out the responsibilities of office holders. You know it says things like respecting treaties. Providing for things like Due Process, Habeus Corpus and other government "obligations."
Rather than take the opportunity to discuss his obligation to uphold that unloved thing called the constitution, he rambles about dishwashers and air conditioning. Clearly "Justice" Thomas has a serious perspective problem. I think that this presentation by Thomas reveals (again) a person with serious problems. To have someone one the highest court of the land claim to not "embrace" the Bill of Rights is very, very troubling.
No comments:
Post a Comment