Weird, I appear open to pushing Clarence Thomas into the Grand Canyon. He's such an astoundingly shitty human being that I don't understand how he lives with himself.
I don't understand how he lives with himself.
I mean, I get that, but there's no amount of money that could make me do the things he's done because I'd hate myself in a way money can't fix. He (and the rest of the conservatives on the court) have hurt so many people and I don't know how they aren't even a little bothered. It's like they're legal robots who can't feel empathy.
Your first mistake is thinking that people like Thomas actually feel empathy for other people that aren't them. There's been studies on this - wealth, especially extreme wealth, physiologically changes how your brain processes things like empathy, altruism, etc.
The US has tranferred $2 triliion to the wealthy since 1976 losing the war on drugs. Making drug addiction illegal is just a way to justify transferring another $2 trillion to the wealthy. It's not about ending drug addiction. It's about profit with a side dish of punishing those that they think they are better than.
It's no more absurd than somehow sleeping outside is illegal. It boggles the fucking mind.
Not being a wealthy white hard right Christian will be illegal. The point is to make it impossible for people to live legally, so you can just push them around any way you like.
I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.
Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn't care how.
And now that he’s in prison, he can be a slave for corporate profit. Truly wonderful, the mind of a capitalist is
"Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to "dispose" of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek."
Should this be interpreted literally?
I interpret this as a metaphor for life.
I'm looking at it more like the literal usage of the word "addicted".
Like, even if an addict legitimately quits, they still might feel addicted for many years later. Is that illegal? 🤔
I'm confused as to how that would even work
"In an appropriate case, the Court should certainly correct this error," Thomas wrote.
Thomas is making called shots now for rich people with private prisons. What a muppet.
There's 158 private prisons in the US. That's roughly 2.5% of detention facilities in the US. People talk like the majority of prisons are privately owned but it's actually quite rare.
The amount of privately owned facilities isn't a good metric. The amount housed in private prisons is that being about 8% combine the two and it gets uncomfortable.
We've already had judges doing cash for prisoners, cash for kids, corruption. They don't need all the budget to attract judges, a few prisons gets the job done.
That’ll fix it
The dude didn't say a word for decades. Now he has a loud opinion about literally everything. I wonder what he's thinking about my new tube socks or the lunch I had two days ago. I'm sure he'll let me know.
Could be cognitive decline. Judges are supposed to hold their cards close to their chest.
It's now illegal to have a disease.
half of america is going to jail due to caffine addiction /s
but his wealthy-donor's "gift" addiction .. wouldn't be illegal, of course..
Wow, never have I ever wished someone became an addict.
Even if he were, those laws wouldn't apply to him.
Oh, there are plenty of laws that would apply to him. None of them are on the books, they're just the laws of the life of an addict.
Paranoia, ostracization... It's a good start
Many people will celebrate sugar baby Clarence’s death. Add this to the list of reasons why.
My man has some of the best health care our government can buy, plus a legion of sponsors ready to prop him up indefinitely.
Little reason to believe he's going anywhere, at least not before the next GOP president can replace him with an equally pilled far right judge.
Hmmm
Thoughtcrime
I lived in Utah for a few years. Statesian conservatives would make disability illegal if they had the opportunity.
It basically already is.
Wouldn't that be a convenient way to keep the ~~slave~~ prison industry running?
If there is one area of American society outside immigration that needs immediate bumper to bumper reform it's the prison system... It's worse than the third world.
in order to fix the corrections system you need to fix the entire legal system. from cops and jails to DAs Judges and laws
Especially when so many states are decriminalizing weed, this could definitely make a lot of state prosecutors very very happy.
Conservatives, personal liberties. Right.
As long as the Sackler family pays him after the ruling it is all legal.
This is just a regurgitation of https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-wants-supreme-court-dispose-landmark-ruling-1915455
Yea, good luck with that
If they make testing positive for scheduled drugs a crime like in the red flag countries, we're fucked. Everyone that tests positive for thc is getting jail time if this happens.
I seem to recall that it used to be a misdemeanor with a minimum 180 days of jail time for testing positive on any drug test, including a pre-employment screening, for scheduled drugs including thc in South Dakota but I can't find any sources about if that was really on the books or not.
Did anyone ever try "I was given drugs without my knowledge"? That's happened to me.
That prize fuckhead is open to anything thatll throw a monkeywrench in the works
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News