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
In a recent interview, President Donald Trump expressed his desire for Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to remain on the bench, highlighting their positive contributions. The current conservative majority of the court, solidified by Trump’s previous appointments, has been a key factor in decisions impacting areas like immigration. Both Justices Thomas and Alito have served for many years, with Thomas being the longest-serving current member. While there has been speculation about their potential retirements, neither justice has publicly announced plans to step down.
Read More
In a surprising turn of events, photographic evidence revealed the contents of a folder used by Bondi during questioning. The folder contained notes that appeared unrelated to official Department of Justice matters. Inside, Bondi had gathered social media screenshots, pre-written responses, and handwritten notes. These were designed to help her prepare “gotcha” moments during her interaction with Whitehouse, including a response to a post about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated that settled legal precedent should not be treated as “gospel,” suggesting some decisions may be based on questionable foundations. He criticized the court’s adherence to precedent, advocating for a re-evaluation of “stare decisis.” Thomas’s remarks come before the Supreme Court’s new term and follow the overturning of Roe v. Wade, where he also expressed a desire to reconsider other substantive due process precedents. This stance reflects a broader conservative effort to dismantle precedents related to civil liberties and social progress.
Read More
Speaking at the Catholic University of America, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the infallibility of settled legal precedent, suggesting some rulings may lack a strong foundation. Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, emphasized that precedent should be based on more than just theoretical underpinnings and respectful of legal tradition. He further stated that he feels no obligation to uphold a precedent if it doesn’t make sense. This perspective comes as the court is poised to address significant cases, potentially including a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas, during a recent appearance, argued that the Supreme Court should critically re-evaluate established legal precedents, implying they are not absolute. Thomas used a metaphor to criticize his colleagues for blindly following precedent. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to address cases that could potentially overturn landmark decisions, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas’s views reflect his long-standing desire to revisit significant Supreme Court rulings, particularly given the current conservative majority, despite the Court’s overall reluctance to overturn past decisions.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker