In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized Justice Clarence Thomas and the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Jackson deemed their arguments “ahistorical” and a misinterpretation of the amendment’s universalist vision of equality. She contended that their approach incorrectly pitted Black Americans against immigrants, contrary to the amendment’s intent to prevent caste and subjugation. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting the administration’s attempt to limit it based on parental “domicile” and allegiance.
Read More
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is advocating for the impeachment and removal of conservative Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Platner echoes progressive calls, including those from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argues the justices’ alleged conflicts of interest and failure to recuse themselves constitute a crisis threatening the rule of law. While the justices deny wrongdoing and Thomas maintains he followed guidance on disclosures, Platner asserts there are compelling reasons for their expulsion from the nation’s highest court.
Read More
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s rigid application of judicial estoppel, emphasizing the doctrine’s equitable and flexible nature. Justice Thomas, however, used this case to question the historical legitimacy and broad application of judicial estoppel, a long-standing legal principle barring contradictory positions in court. He suggested that the Court should reexamine the doctrine’s origins and widespread use in federal litigation. While the majority focused on a fact-specific approach to applying judicial estoppel, Thomas’s concurrence signals a potential future challenge to the doctrine itself.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas has reached a significant milestone, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history. Over the past decade, he has become a pivotal figure in the conservative legal movement, influencing landmark rulings on abortion, voting rights, and Second Amendment protections. This increased influence is particularly notable following the appointment of three conservative justices, solidifying a supermajority on the court. Thomas’s extensive tenure also grants him considerable sway in opinion assignments, further shaping the court’s direction.
Read More
This article posits that Justice Clarence Thomas is now considered the worst justice on the Supreme Court, surpassing even Samuel Alito. Thomas’s recent public address, where he inaccurately linked progressivism to historical atrocities like Nazism and communism, is cited as a key example of his “intellectually dishonest ideologue” stance. The author contrasts this view with the historical reality of the Progressive Era, which is credited with saving American capitalism and preventing fascism through crucial reforms. Furthermore, Thomas’s alleged disregard for judicial ethics, particularly his failure to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election despite his wife’s involvement, is presented as further evidence of his problematic tenure.
Read More
In a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declared progressivism an existential threat to the foundational principles of the Declaration of Independence, asserting that it undermines the notion of God-given rights in favor of government-derived ones. He drew historical parallels to the original Progressive Movement, criticizing figures like Woodrow Wilson and linking progressivism to ideologies responsible for mass atrocities. Thomas argued that progressivism and the Declaration cannot coexist, implying a fundamental conflict that endangers the nation’s form of government.
Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has ignited controversy with remarks drawing a link between progressive ideas and the rise of Adolf Hitler. Critics, including historians and legal scholars, contend this comparison misrepresents the complex historical factors behind Nazi Germany’s ascent and exacerbates partisan rhetoric. While supporters argue Thomas was making a philosophical point about government overreach, the episode highlights the increasing use of charged historical comparisons by high-profile officials in contemporary political discourse. The controversy underscores the risks of invoking extreme historical events in modern debates, particularly from influential judicial figures.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a speech at the University of Texas at Austin that began as a celebration of the Declaration of Independence but quickly became a critique of progressivism. Thomas asserted that progressivism was intertwined with 20th-century atrocities, including those committed by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, as well as racial segregation and eugenics. This address, analyzed by Slate’s Amicus podcast co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, was characterized by its grievance-filled narrative and a solipsistic focus on Thomas himself. The analysis highlights the irony of Thomas thanking his billionaire benefactor, Harlan Crow, in a speech that decried corruption and self-dealing.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly voiced strong criticism of progressivism, deeming it an existential threat to the foundational principles of the United States. Speaking at the University of Texas at Austin Law School, Thomas asserted that a spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America pervades the nation, placing blame on “intellectuals” and higher education institutions for diminishing founding values. He argued that progressivism seeks to replace the Declaration of Independence’s premise of God-given rights with the notion that rights originate from government, fostering subservience incompatible with constitutional ideals. Thomas also expressed concern over Washington officials who he believes lack commitment to core tenets such as free enterprise and the Constitution’s original meaning, often masking their failures as pragmatic institutionalism. He concluded with a call for Americans to emulate the courage of the Declaration’s signers to secure the nation’s future.
Read More
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner advocates for Democrats to “deal with” the Supreme Court if they regain power, suggesting oversight and potential impeachments to remove justices. He believes holding Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as federal judges could lead to the impeachment and removal of at least two. Platner also proposes expanding the Supreme Court’s size when a Democrat is in the White House, emphasizing the need for senators willing to wield such power.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker