More Batshitery from Justice Clarence Thomas

I've written frequently about the need in my opinion for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to either resign from or be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court given his many ethical lapses and his wife, Jinny Thomas' blatant partisanship and extremism all of which is injecting tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dollars into the Thomas household's fiances. How is one impartial when The irony, of course, is that Thomas whines about judicial activism even as he engages in it himself to a shocking degree. Apparently, it only counts as judicial activism if the result is progressive while reactionary - dare I say Neanderthal? - activism doesn't exist in Thomas' f*cked up fantasy world. One of the roles of the Courts - including the Supreme Court - is to rein in both the executive and legislative branches when they over step the limits of the U. S. Constitution. This simple reality is apparently beyond the grasp of Thomas' (in my view) limited intellect. Here are some highlights from Think Progress:

At a speech to Nebraska law students, Justice Clarence Thomas made a surprising claim — that the Supreme Court has been too activist and should stop second-guessing elected leaders: [Thomas] told the group that the court is being asked to play too big of a role in the nation’s governance. Currently, he said too many of the difficult decisions are being left to the courts to decide. “The really hard calls ought to be made by citizens and their political leaders,” Thomas said.

Thomas is, of course, correct that the current Supreme Court has gone out of its way to undermine democracy. Thomas and his four conservative colleagues destroyed meaningful checks on corporate money in politics. They undermined essential workplace protections enacted by democratically elected officials, and they wholeheartedly endorse a privatized, corporate-owned arbitration system which allows powerful corporations to immunize themselves from countless laws.

Moreover, Justice Thomas is by far the worst offender on the Supreme Court. A 2005 Yale study found that Thomas is more likely to strike down an act of Congress than any other member of the Court. Indeed, if given his way, Thomas would return America to an era when fathers competed with their teenaged children for work and African-Americans could legally be excluded from jobs, hotels, and lunch counters

So Thomas’ claim that “the court is being asked to play too big of a role in the nation’s governance” is quite true — and all that Thomas needs to do to fix this problem is to quit the relentless campaign of judicial activism he began the minute he joined the Supreme Court.

Could all the money Thomas' wife has lapped up from conservative and possibly corporate sources have possibly influenced Thomas' ruling??