What The Fool Tarnation?
Defense lawyers looked into the case of Tim Foster, an African-American, is on death row in Georgia for the 1987 murder of an elderly white woman. Foster was convicted by an all-white jury. Recently, they found notes made by the prosecutors proving that black people were stuck from the jury for being black.
That’s illegal.
The Supremes heard the case and agreed 7 – 1 that Foster was denied his constitutional rights because a jury of his peers was made impossible by the prosecutors’ illegal actions.
The one dissenting vote? Clarence Damn Thomas.
I shall be solely disappointed if Thurgood Marshall doesn’t beat the crap outta that guy when he gets to great beyond.
Thanks to Bryan for the heads up.
They will never end up in the same place. Thomas is in for a hell of a surprise. Bad pun intended.
1Slaphappy Thomas. Wonder if this falls under Self hate?
2Never underestimate the power of RBG. She may be the one to beat the crap out of Clarence for this particular dissent. If anyone took the dissents of Clarence seriously, this particular dissent would limit the powers of SCROTUS.
Or, maybe Clarence was unaware of his surroundings and thinking he was in a casino at a craps table came up with his “let it ride” opinion regarding lower court rulings.
3Though I love the mental image of either or both Justices beating the snot out of Clarence, I’m not sure it’s necessary. Just state the facts as JJ did and let them sit there and stink up the place while everyone stares at him in disgust. (I was going to add “and in disbelief,” but sadly no.)
For some reason I’m getting a craving for an Oreo.
4No such luck, Ms Juanita. Thomas and Marshall won’t reside in the same Universe come judgement(or lack of in Thomas case) Day. Hell, I bet you can guess where Thomas will be sweating out eternity stoking racist fires for Lou Cipher.
5Here is an excerpt from Uncle Clarence’s dissent
I don’t mind a lynching, I just can’t abide a hi-tech one. Low-tech lynchings have been a form of free expression since the beginning of this country. Our Founders did not exempt anyone from lynching, and our history is
replaterepleatFULL with examples of white people who were also lynched. To specifically exempt a black man from a lynching is racist, and also anabrogortion,abrogination– gee, I miss Fat Tony, he knew all the big words – lemme start overSince white people can also be lynched, saving a black guy from a lynching is racist, and I will have no part of that, because to suggest that black people need special treatment is against the
Consitootin,Consituationdamnit stop picking on me! You know what I mean.So, thanks to the
6First,Second,Third,Fourthshoot, AN Amendment, this right is reserved to the states and the people in them who think it’s ok to due process someone to death, because Freedom.Can a SCJ be impeached and thrown off the bench? Of course, that would seriously throw the court into a total lack of justices leaving basically three smart women!
7Thomas has to continue being a self loather cause he’s afraid he’ll pass out and wake up as a black man.
81smartcanerican, yes a SCJ can be impeached. Of course, that would require action by the US House of Reprehensible. It’s not the st00pid alone that would be grounds for impeaching Clarence. For a full schematic of where Clarence’s loyalties lie, the activities of he and his wife Ginni need a Congressional investigation.
daChipster, that isn’t parody, when it’s such a close translation of Clarence’s dissent. Great job of paraphrasing the his opinion!
9@pkm
@daChipster
Yall are fooling me. Thomas doesnt have an opinion on anything since Scalia up and died.
10Clarence Thomas is not a Democrat so here will be no investigation.
11The Thomas sponsorship was by deceased Senator John Danforth. It’s too bad he didn’t stay with his studies to become a priest.
12Clarence Thomas has made an excellent point as he continues to prove that a black person in a position of authority does not necessarily have an effect on the outcome of racial policy, laws, and the decision making process which creates them.
I look forward to the time (soon?) when Justice Thomas can survey his legacy, declare (to himself) a job well done, and step aside, because, what is the point of his position on the Supreme Court? He has repeatedly demonstrated he makes no difference being there.
13@daChipster — I can’t stop laughing.
14Darth Krazy strikes again.
15This isn’t the first time he has done something this D.U.M.B.! How the blazes do his colleagues put p with him?
16bud malone, I believe you mispelled DISEASED Senator Danforth.
17“US House of Reprehensible.”
PKM, you made me snort and I’m in a public place! People are staring. Maybe I should just shrug and mumble, “Stupid Republicans.” That would clear it up.
18I must disagree with about Thurgood jumping Clarance. I would be surprised if the end up in the same realm.
19The full minority opinion was just read on the radio. (Yes, I have and do listen to a radio!) Per Thomas, the Supremes had no business taking this up for discussion. And there were a lot of technical things blah blah blah. All that despite the fact that all 8 of them saw the evidence: the names of possible black jurors highlighted in green with the letter B written beside the name and dammit no that 34 y. o. woman was not too close in age to the defendant! Gawdamighty! There’s a a chipmunk in my back yard that could occupy Thomas’s chair and make more damn sense!
20Wait a sec-Thomas already occupies the great beyond. It is right behind the outback and in front of the infield.
21NPR reports that Clarence found the prosecution’s “peremptory strikes” credible. My immediate thought was just as credible as he is a SCJ.
22I detest that man. Have ever since I saw his slimy self, then the class, intelligence, and integrity of Anita Hill. She is one of my heroes.
23His good buddy Scalia wasn’t there to help him figure this one out. Couldn’t Judge Thomas be persuaded to retire to take his grandkids around the country in his RV?
24I read of this case on the interweb http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf
Not having a law degree harms me here, but I thought I understood that a “peremptory challenge” is one an attorney makes during voir dire without having to justify the challenge.
25Since the challenge is beyond a required explanation how did it become an issue for appeal?
Micr..
We can remove a certain number without giving a reason, but the prosecutor may not, in bad faith, remove for racial reasons. We fight that battle here in New Mexico all the time when they removed Hispanics.
26Micr- it mave have just been dumb luck that this guy’s case was chosen for review- http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/argument-analysis-to-decide-or-not-that-is-the-question/
It certainly seems patently obvious the jurors were stricken solely because of their race and , equally obvious, the prosecutor(s) lied through their teeth about it.
Thanks for posting your link.
27Met Thomas years ago to try and get him a mortgage. Neither he or his wife could write one coherent sentence. Thomas has crap credit, no money and bad debts including defaulted college loans. He couldn’t speak well and I had to write his credit excuse letters. I was appalled when he was named to SCOTUS. He is a disgrace.
28Thurgood Marshall is not in hell.
29