Clarence Thomas Officially Running for President

Https://yournewsnet.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aim-at-big-tech-companies/

"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles river or hike the Oregon trail"

Nice fake news. Nowhere does it say that he's running for President. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Sean.

Written by Nero, 08.04.2021 at 12:17

Nice fake news. Nowhere does it say that he's running for President. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Sean.

Sean is a truth news, the rest is fake news. He knows the truth, and the truth if whatever Sean says.

Clarence Thomas should have been the first black president.

The rock has 46% approval if he runs for president boiiiiiiis. and also obama was much better than trump.

When will Nero run for president?

Written by Dave, 08.04.2021 at 20:44

Clarence Thomas should have been the first black president.

Is he any good? That last one was useless

Written by Augustus Caesar, 12.04.2021 at 11:19

Written by Dave, 08.04.2021 at 20:44

Clarence Thomas should have been the first black president.

Is he any good? That last one was useless

Definitely yes, in my opinion, but I may be biased because Thomas' political views align with my own. Obama was the polar opposite of my views.

Thomas is an "originalist", meaning he interprets the constitution as written, as it would have been understood at the time it was written. To me this is common sense. Unfortunately the opposite side of the spectrum doesn't see it that way. They call the constitution a "lviing document", meaning they can interpret it to be whatever they want. They will take an amendment written 100 or 200 years ago, twist the words with a modern meaning, or flat out invent a meaning that doesn't even exist. They see "penumbras" in the amendments (i.e. things that don't actually exist, but they imagine should). In the end the constitution means whatever they want it to mean, not what is actually written.

I say, if you want to change the constitution, then pass an amendment and change it. That is in fact the process for making changes. Don't just make up a new interpretation as you go along -- it is by this process the federal government has grown to the behemoth it is today, invading and controlling so many aspects of people's lives. Some people see that as a good thing. I don't. If you read the U.S. Constituion, it is actually pretty clear -- the powers of government are supposed to be limited and well defined.

Thomas is one of the very few people in our government who stands up for that.

Written by Dave, 12.04.2021 at 17:04

Well he doesn't sound like a warmongerer so he'd have my vote, Biden & Obama are both scum in my opinion.

Written by Dave, 12.04.2021 at 17:04

"lviing document", meaning they can interpret it to be whatever they want. --- twist the words with a modern meaning, or flat out invent a meaning that doesn't even exist.

This is how religious terrorism exists. Their leaders interpret the holy books as "living document".

By reqding the bible you could learn some genereal examples if good behaviour. However if you followed it structly word by word you'd find that you have become an arrogant hateful family-beating rapist genocidal misanthrope. While meaning well and trying to find good virtues people centuries ago did have terrible standards and implements and these are irrelevant to modern times.

Same goes with the American constitution. When it was written Doctors legally wrote Opium to cure cold. It does not mean that Thomas Jefferson did not respect his citizens's health right?

We have had similar situation last year when the government used a crack in the law to disassemble the parliment and call for elections whereas the very purpose of the law was to ensure the independance of the parliment. I think it amplifies that the strict word is not everything. It is suppose to represent virtue and purpose and ignoring it is just wrong.