|Dissenting while I still can
||[Feb. 4th, 2010|01:54 pm]
Can I please have permission to just punch Justice Clarence Thomas in the face?
In a speech he gave at Stetson University, he apparently said that some criticism of the court and government was getting out of hand. This is, frankly, terrifying. The ability of the people to criticize their government is the foundation of this country, and those who have acted against it end with a shadow over their names in history. Justice Thomas is one of the nine people charged with defending those rights, and now he thinks such criticism is out of hand? Unnerving.
He also defended the SCOTUS decision that corporations can spend money on political campaigns and candidates just like other people. To quote:
"I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company," Thomas said, according to a report in The New York Times. "These are corporations."
Let's parse this a moment. Justice Thomas is baffled that corporations would editorialize against the decision when they themselves are the beneficiaries of it? Perhaps, Mr. Justice, this should tell you something: when corporations are appalled by rights you're giving them, maybe you're off the mark with your decision. If the state of Ohio suddenly ruled that all people who live in houses with even-numbered addresses had the right to claim the property of people living at odd-numbered addresses, I would not regard this as a great benefit to myself. Just because I could benefit from it doesn't mean that I would be in the right to do so.
So perhaps instead of calling these newspaper companies goofy for not being pleased at getting their trotters in the trough, you should reconsider whether giving the keys to the country to such stellar performers and AIG and Enron, or foreign corporations doing business in the US, is either wise or what the forefathers had in mind.
Canada sounds better all the time.