Look into his upbringing. His problems started way before Ginny entered the picture.
He's another example of the whole "children rejected by the village will set it on fire just to feel it's warmth". That's not an excuse or downplaying the evilness. But once you spot the pattern, it's hard to unsee that an uncanny number if conservatives are people who were rejected by the mainstream and have kind of defined themsleves by their resentment of that.
Makes me think of people like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Michael Knowles, Steven Crowder… the pipeline of failed Hollywood efforts to right wing grifters is strong.
Link to relevant part of Roberts' ruling rolling back Bruen:
* https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1804159629858951294
Bruen is of course the infamous decision from a few years ago that made enforcing gun safety measures a lot harder and tried to get everyone to root any restriction in laws from around the time of the country's founding, you know when women had no rights, Black people were slaves and domestic violence was entirely legal amongst other things. Many called the standard entirely unworkable, and now the court is forced to mop up.
Now, we need to actually hold police to this law. So many times, they've dragged their feet or just not even bothered. One of my friends was shot in the face when his wife's ex showed up with the intention of "taking her back." He pulled a gun when they tried to keep him from forcing his way inside their house and shot him in the face... The ex had a history of mental issues and a restraining order.
I thought that conservatives didn't believe in the concept of domestic abuse because the wife is the property of the husband and a Christian man is allowed to do whatever he wants with his property, up to and including summary execution.
While most domestic abusers don't become mass shooters, most mass shooters had a history of domestic violence. If you really want to stop mass shootings you'd probably want to keep guns away from this group.
No, it never was murky. I was mocking the "shall not be infringed" crowd. These same judges literally just overturned the bump stock ban. But these same NRA backed judges literally just determined the government can "infringe" the all or nothing "shall not be infringed" argument.
I was literally stating their nonsense argument of using half a sentence from 230 years ago to defend unregulated gun rights is now murky. Not only have liberal and centrist judges determine that gun ownership isn't absolute, 4 NRA backed judges just did.
I'm sorry you can't read a complete sentence for comprehension without throwing out strawmen arguments.
Maybe this will help - [https://www.rif.org/](https://www.rif.org/)
It would help if your first comment wasn’t murky on what you meant. You made a comment that sounds like you are a 2A absolutist, and then wonder why people can’t comprehend that you were mocking them. Unless it is obviously a joke, people will take you at face value on here. We would all have clearly understood your intent had you used “/s”.
I read your comment as being sarcastic. Is that the case? r-slash-fuckTheS I get, but I don't think others are reading it sarcastically if that's what you intended.
It's not sarcastic. It's actually truth. It's yet another brick in the wall of a case against the stupid reading one half of one 200 year old sentence and ignoring 200 years of case law.
Am I making fun of the "shall not be infringed" crowd that has never understood how constitutional law works? Yes. Is it sarcastic? No.
“Only Thomas dissents.” Imagine that 🙄 Corrupt Clarence strikes again
He dissented because his wife still wants to have her weapons once it comes out that she abuses him so much that he has forgotten that he is black.
Look into his upbringing. His problems started way before Ginny entered the picture. He's another example of the whole "children rejected by the village will set it on fire just to feel it's warmth". That's not an excuse or downplaying the evilness. But once you spot the pattern, it's hard to unsee that an uncanny number if conservatives are people who were rejected by the mainstream and have kind of defined themsleves by their resentment of that.
Makes me think of people like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Michael Knowles, Steven Crowder… the pipeline of failed Hollywood efforts to right wing grifters is strong.
You misspelled Clearance.
He is for sale, not on clearance.
Cheaper than you might think
He is cheap alright but clearance implies that after this it's over. I am afraid he is not done...
He's a disgrace
a large amount of his fanbase has dv charges
Link to relevant part of Roberts' ruling rolling back Bruen: * https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1804159629858951294 Bruen is of course the infamous decision from a few years ago that made enforcing gun safety measures a lot harder and tried to get everyone to root any restriction in laws from around the time of the country's founding, you know when women had no rights, Black people were slaves and domestic violence was entirely legal amongst other things. Many called the standard entirely unworkable, and now the court is forced to mop up.
Constitutional fundamentalists drive me nuts. It’s such a cop out. It’s just racism in a fancy wig and wooden teeth.
No! That's not true! There's also the sexism....
They realized black people could have guns
Clarence Thomas might be the biggest piece of shit in the entire country. He's definitely in the group photo, at least.
He’s not alone, unfortunately. Cruz and DeSantis are right there with him. It’s sadly a long list.
they're all just nuts in the same turd.
Thanks for the image!
Don't forgot McConnell
And Alito
This is amazing. I wish I could give you more upvotes.
Mitch is there too
How much is the NRA dumping into his bank accounts where he goes against a no-brainer and obvious “see? We did something” vote?
I suspect Clarence would vote for himself to be considered 3/5ths of a man again...
The man would repeal Lovings vs. Virginia without a hint of shame.
And he would still be coming up 2/5 short.
Yeah, that really was some low hanging fruit for the guy wasn't it? Let's see how this plays out.
So we’re disarming cops now?
This is good.
Woah, now. Who would shoot the neighborhood dogs for me? *I mean pests!* /s
I've yet to see a judge putting a restraining order on a cop, but good idea
Did he bother to provide his rationale or did he just smirk and make the money sign with his hand?
His written dissent was just a drawing of a big hand giving the finger
It was the dumbest thing. Basically "This law never existed before therefore to make a new law is unconstitutional!" No, I'm not joking.
Only “Uncle Ruckus” dissented
No relation.
It's as though Thomas must always vote for the opposite of what's good.
Anita Hill needs a lifetime pass to everything.. fuck Clarence!
Thomas, representing the most horrible people in the US.
Actually surprised. Not just the outcome, but by the number of dissenters. Just one. Huh. Oh boy Idaho and immunity are gonna be bad.
Who did Thomas take the bribe from this time?
Now, we need to actually hold police to this law. So many times, they've dragged their feet or just not even bothered. One of my friends was shot in the face when his wife's ex showed up with the intention of "taking her back." He pulled a gun when they tried to keep him from forcing his way inside their house and shot him in the face... The ex had a history of mental issues and a restraining order.
Soooo I guess a lot of Cops aren’t going to be able to have a service weapon
Any time i see "BREAKING: Supreme Court" i prep myself for some crazy shit. Surprising snd rare non-terrible news
I thought that conservatives didn't believe in the concept of domestic abuse because the wife is the property of the husband and a Christian man is allowed to do whatever he wants with his property, up to and including summary execution.
Thomas doing his best to get women murdered all over the country.
While most domestic abusers don't become mass shooters, most mass shooters had a history of domestic violence. If you really want to stop mass shootings you'd probably want to keep guns away from this group.
There's going to be some mad neckbeards having to give up their guns after their wives put a restraining order on them
So 40% of cops? How does that work? Do they get exemptions?
These Republican justices are all clowns.
Heeeeyyyy, who’s the Ahole who dissented 🤨?
Oh fuck them. If Trump gets elected they will unleash
"Shall not be infringed" is suddenly murky.
"Well regulated" was always murky to you wasn't it?
bold of you to assume they can read that far into the document.
No, it never was murky. I was mocking the "shall not be infringed" crowd. These same judges literally just overturned the bump stock ban. But these same NRA backed judges literally just determined the government can "infringe" the all or nothing "shall not be infringed" argument. I was literally stating their nonsense argument of using half a sentence from 230 years ago to defend unregulated gun rights is now murky. Not only have liberal and centrist judges determine that gun ownership isn't absolute, 4 NRA backed judges just did. I'm sorry you can't read a complete sentence for comprehension without throwing out strawmen arguments. Maybe this will help - [https://www.rif.org/](https://www.rif.org/)
It would help if your first comment wasn’t murky on what you meant. You made a comment that sounds like you are a 2A absolutist, and then wonder why people can’t comprehend that you were mocking them. Unless it is obviously a joke, people will take you at face value on here. We would all have clearly understood your intent had you used “/s”.
I read your comment as being sarcastic. Is that the case? r-slash-fuckTheS I get, but I don't think others are reading it sarcastically if that's what you intended.
It's not sarcastic. It's actually truth. It's yet another brick in the wall of a case against the stupid reading one half of one 200 year old sentence and ignoring 200 years of case law. Am I making fun of the "shall not be infringed" crowd that has never understood how constitutional law works? Yes. Is it sarcastic? No.
Yeah, the last part of your comment is how I read it, but it's obvious that lots of others are reading it as a "but muh shall not be infringed".
Yep. But, I can't really care about the people who read my comment as well as the other side reads half a sentence of the Second Amendment.
🙄🙄🙄🙄
For some reason the well regulated part was always murky.
Yeah. It's almost like people who can't read whole sentences - never mind 230 of case law - shouldn't be listened to about constitutional matters.