Clarence Thomas says one person one vote, no good...

[Jackie Wilson Said]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/04/3766153/justice-thomas-thinks-america-is-too-democratic-he-has-a-shockingly-radical-plan-to-fix-it/

The problem with American democracy, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, is that state governments don’t have enough power to manipulate it in order to make some people’s votes count more than others. That’s the theory Thomas laid out Monday in an opinion joined by no other justice.

Go ahead, lecture me some more why more of these type justices are no problem...Because this is what you get with a GOP White House.

[revbones]

1. So vote Bernie and avoid a GOP White House... nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

4. Plan on doing just that, and then Hillary if necessary. Otherwise, we get more of these

but some people care about their demands more.

[revbones]

13. Yeah, those pesky principles some people have... nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

14. I know, I mean so what if SC decides one person one vote no longer applies.

I mean if you are part of the white male property owner class, you will be fine.

[revbones]

15. Yeah, that's going to happen. Sure.

But a vote for Hillary will definitely put another corporate-friendly justice on the bench.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

16. Now you are just responding to respond. There is an agenda here.

[revbones]

17. Sure. whatever conspiracy you need to believe in... nt

[ViseGrip]

2. Sure...but all I hear are crickets from dems during a huge campaign cycle.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Maybe his vote in the SCOTUS should count three fifths? nt

[mac56]

5. I see what you did there

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Well. The hypocrisy is astounding.

But, it's obvious that Clarence Thomas learned quite a bit from Scalia.

Would love to hear what he has to say about the three-fifths compromise:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

8. Of course he has a great rationalization for everything. The new Paul Ryan Supreme Court

will have great explanations why only white property owners can vote.

[BellaLuna]

7. He actually spoke? Out loud?

I'm more shocked at that than anything!

[Jackie Wilson Said]

9. It was in a decision where he agreed to do the right thing because it didnt

go far enough, didnt do enough damage to voting rights.

It was his written word, not spoken.

[BellaLuna]

11. thanks..

[Orrex]

10. One wonders if he'd be content to get 3/5 of a vote.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

12. The irony is lost on him because he is a true conservative/idiot.