I don't trust the supreme court. Sad days.

@jonathanrossroberts

19 күн бұрын

Me either. They are illegitimate at this point.

@StacyInLove1

18 күн бұрын

Who would? This MAGA SCOTUS has no legitimacy.

@user-hl4iw7nu6g

11 күн бұрын

Do you own a gun or just a bunch of masks?

You're really good at this Litman, and we appreciate you!

@jpkatz1435

19 күн бұрын

❤❤❤!!!!!❤❤❤❤

Nothing quite so rich as a Supreme Court Judge living in the “sensibilities” of a previous century! 😡😞😡

@mark-ish

18 күн бұрын

but but.. he vacations in a walmart carpark.

@taraclarke6850

18 күн бұрын

@@mark-ish bwahaaaa .. yeah, you’re right so there’s that! 👏😂😁🫣🤭

@taraclarke6850

18 күн бұрын

@@mark-ish if only you and I could “afford” to stay at the walmart car park and not loose face🤷‍♀️🫣🤭😞🤭

@davidstraight3622

5 сағат бұрын

Ironic, isn’t it, that a Black justice wants to go back to a time when he would have been enslaved? Here are your chains, Clarence. We must be true to our nation’s traditions.

@davidstraight3622

4 сағат бұрын

And, on another issue, where are the “traditions and histories” of our country in the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving vs Virginia, which overturned all laws against inter-racial marriages (“miscegenation” to the racists). Such laws have been around since the 17th century, and were deeply engrained in our traditions and history. That decision must be struck down. So, sorry Clarence, your marriage to Ginni is unconstitutional, and is therefore null and void.

Thomas forgets that we are not living in the 1700's. If we were he would be a slave.

@konradyearwood5845

19 күн бұрын

He still is a slave. Regardless of how many "gifts" he is given he is still doing Massa's bidding without question.

@AntNo100

19 күн бұрын

Very fine point, some might say that he deserves prison rather than slavery, but why quibble?

@davidstraight3622

19 күн бұрын

⁠@@AntNo100 I’d be happy with anything that removed this miscreant from his seat on the bench, which he clearly is unfit to occupy.

@simontemplar404

19 күн бұрын

He still is to the white Christian nationalists who own him.

@oapster7963

19 күн бұрын

I know, he wouldn't be considered a person.

By Thomas's logic, the court never should have ruled on anything. The man is a waste of space.

@sassysaint3096

19 күн бұрын

He's a waste of skin.

@keithmcqueen3115

19 күн бұрын

He's is dirty and courpt

@marshabailey1121

19 күн бұрын

Bought by the gun lobby.

@keithmcqueen3115

19 күн бұрын

I wonder if it taste to good?,for the sunno cathlic

@Oldleftiehere

19 күн бұрын

And oxygen!

Just proves Originalism is BS

@BunnEFartz

19 күн бұрын

@user-pp4lx3bt1o Yes, that became obvious in the Colorado case.

@joeblow5087

18 күн бұрын

Originalism would own Thomas a SLAVE.

This is how it works when they go by the law and not by political views. Thomas just doesn't get it because he doesn't want to lose everything he gets from the NRA.

@cheska2024

19 күн бұрын

In 3 letters, that sums up the reason for his opinion.

Thank you, Harry! Are you taking care of yourself? You deserve some R&R.

How TF did we get here?? If these people think that the Constitution is it and there should be nothing else, then why do we even need lawyers and Judges. Especially Supreme Court judges!!

@oliver_twistor

18 күн бұрын

It's bold of Thomas and Coney Barrett believes that the founders would have had no problem with Supreme Court justices who are Black or female. If we're going to be originalists, I think we should go all the way.

"Bear" is not "own". The military provides the guns, you bear them in defense of the nation not AGAINST the nation.

@craigkeller

19 күн бұрын

And, the guns were single shot muzzle loaders.

@Jayden0558

19 күн бұрын

⁠@@craigkeller It says right keep and bear arms, that doesnt say of that generation of guns. It just says guns. But it says keep so yes we can own guns to

@diedampfbrasse98

18 күн бұрын

just ridiculous how the US suffers massive casualties due to being stuck in the age of muskets and sails when it comes to the constitution ... having lost far more people to guns in peacetime then other nations have during actual wars. Fairly literally you keep shooting your own feet by holding that outdated constitution in such high regards and preventing changes ... not that I object really, its entertaining to us and in the end keeping you (the competition) from developing too fast. Gun ownership wouldnt even be a problem, if you had solved your problems with inequality and education ... switzerland shows how its done. But as usual, you fail at developing everything and therefor simply have no rational arguments in favor of guns ... they clearly dont protect your people and it doesnt even take a foreign power to make that clear.

@TheRealScooterGuy

18 күн бұрын

@@craigkeller -- And the press back then was what...? Hint: Your statements above are protected because the constitution has been deemed to include modern variations of the technology that was in existence when it was written. Also, the "pickle gun" which is commonly believed to be the first "machine gun" existed well before the constitution was written.

@spencerlane2871

18 күн бұрын

"To KEEP and bear arms"---keep means own, ya doofus

I'm sorry, I just can't take scotus arguments seriously. Just a bunch of bs to support their bribers

Thank you Harry!

When is Justice Thomas going to realize that following his "originalist view" of the Constitution, he would never gotten out of the house in rural Georgia Harland Crowe bought for his mother, or that in Virginia where he lives with his wife, their marriage was illegal?

@spencerlane2871

18 күн бұрын

Have you never heard of the 13th Amendment?

4:08 The entire point of having a weapon is to cause physical harm to someone or something. That is very much the only use for firearms.

@holdon4992

18 күн бұрын

Well, owning a gun maybe but firearms aren’t always used for that. It’s like saying archery is only for hunting. Archery is an Olympic sport. No, I’m not a gun lover but there are other uses for them that do not involve physical harm to others. It’s that guns evolved greatly since the 1700s and the morals, values and laws have lagged.

@F16_viper_pilot

18 күн бұрын

No, they are also used for hunting and sports shooting.

@jrnichols

15 күн бұрын

@@F16_viper_pilot Hunt me an animal without causing physical harm.

@jrnichols

15 күн бұрын

@@holdon4992 Show me a target I can use forever because it never gets physically damaged by a projectile and I will show you a target that never gets shot.

@F16_viper_pilot

15 күн бұрын

@@jrnichols It’s okay that you don’t like guns, and I guess you’re a vegetarian too, or maybe you’re not a vegetarian and you’re just virtue signaling from a place of hypocrisy. Either way, we have a second amendment that’s just as valid as the other 26. In fact, it was one of the first ratified in 1791, speaking to its importance to the founders, and is one of only 10 in the Bill of Rights (the very first 10 in fact that we’re all ratified in 1791, with all the others ratified in subsequent years), giving it special clout above the remaining 17. And while you may not agree with the second amendment, it really doesn’t matter, because it exists as part of the foundation of this country, so your opinion pales in comparison to the law and the position the states took as a whole when it was adopted.

Uncle Thomas once again takes the evil side of an issue. I'm guessing the NRA sends him a stocking stuffer for Christmas.

@kaecatlady

19 күн бұрын

Yep, and I'm betting that "stuffer" would be enough for us average folks to buy a house. Without monthly payments.

@tonyyarbray

19 күн бұрын

and they probably celebrate it monthly or quarterly

@no1nderwhy

19 күн бұрын

Lol

@mark-ish

19 күн бұрын

Im guessing NRA did a whole lot better than Olivers oppulent touring coach.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

He's the only one that understands how this can be used to infringe the rights of the rest of us, and the only one with the courage to try to stand up for the Bill of Rights. The rest voted the way they did because there is multiples as much funding the anti-2A side than the pro-2A side, much much more. And history teaches us when government infringes rights things get ugly, but people like you won't realize that until it is two late. Better to defend rights legally than actually have them infringed and fight to get them back.

If the Founding Fathers had not wished for the way things were run to be decided only by what they set in law or tradition from the start, then they would not have put the methods into the Constitution for us to have the ability to amend it. Even on issues of slavery, the Founding Fathers were considering how in the future they would want to get rid of slavery. Times change and we must change with it. No longer are women considered chattel who don't matter (which unfortunately was the case when the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution.) They are full citizens and if someone is found to be an abuser (which, fortunately, is no longer considered something that is ok), then they have lost the right to carry a gun. We know from years of experience that domestic abusers, even though it doesn't always occur, all too often become murderers of the people they have abused. That's why common sense gun laws say that abusers have lost the right to carry arms.

@mark-ish

18 күн бұрын

Great post. Founding fathers got things going. No reason not to improve or update.

The fact that's it's surprising is scary.

Thomas is always on the side of anything or anyone against women, children, family, and anyone who could become a victim if the person gives in to gun violence in a fit of temper.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Yeah? So the rights of the rest of us should be infringed because some women are dumb enough to stay with violent men? The warning signs are always there, their friends and family try to warn them about being with certain men, but we've ALL known those women who say things like "he just does something for me" and stays with them despite all the warning signs. The neighbor woman across the street from me when growing up was one such woman, she lived with violent man after violent man, and one of the girls I went to high school with had that same proclivity.

@debrasawka2165

14 күн бұрын

Is my body my property? If so can I defend it as such?

*_comment for the algorithm gods_* ~ with 💞 & appreciation from Winston-Salem, NC

Will this cause police officers charged with domestic violence to lose their right to carry weapons?

@dorenecornwell6213

19 күн бұрын

An important question. Will it make spouses less likely to report because of risk to family income??

@junerussell6972

19 күн бұрын

@@dorenecornwell6213 Spouses already are less likely to report because of risk to family income. Taking away the guns (even of a police officer) is not the only reason a police officer could lose their job because of their domestic abuse. However, too many police departments would probably give exceptions for "on the job" vs being allowed to take it home when it comes to this, because they often don't seem to mind their officers being problematic in that way. They even let officers who have a history of excessive violence on the job continue.

@christinajay8696

19 күн бұрын

@@junerussell6972good some of those mfs are the worse

@junerussell6972

19 күн бұрын

Too true. I'm a domestic violence survivor, but fortunately. my abuser was not a "law enforcement" person. But some of my friends who are also survivors were married to "law enforcement" people. And they used their sources to find where my friends lived. Fortunately, each had a good person within the departments who would let them know when their exes had done that, so that they could find a safer place. It's also why my state's Address Confidentiality Program has a provision that people in the program have their information restricted even from the police. (When I was first in the ACP, everyone's information was restricted from the police. It caused a lot of problems if there was a traffic stop, since the officer couldn't easily access the information. I was once given a ticket in Bremerton by an officer who was so pissed that he couldn't get more info on me that he gave me a ticket he shouldn't have given me, lied to me that if I paid it right away rather than going to court it wouldn't be on my record, and then sent me in the opposite direction when I asked him how to get to the freeway from there, since I was lost and hadn't seen the speed zone sign that was hidden behind a large tree. He also made wisecracks about the existence of the ACP and the people, like me, who were in it.)

@scottryals3191

19 күн бұрын

@@christinajay8696 Freakin control freaks. Disrespecting a cop (in his mind) way too often carries the death penalty or brutal beating. Taking a cop's gun when he's got a problem only makes sense. Get him the help he needs; but get 'em off the street. It's to PROTECT and serve the public.

Thanks for your expert reporting on the newest SCOTUS decision

The integrity of the Supreme Court has been diminished

Why is the member of the court who was not recognized as an equal person when the us was founded….so obsessed with the founder’s intentions? Seems perplexing.

@flugsven

19 күн бұрын

He defines himself as white? Maybe?

@yesitschelle

19 күн бұрын

I assume he refuses to think it through. He certainly doesn't use logic in opinions.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Not really. This is a matter of rights. You are trying to use the infringement of human rights that was slavery to justify an infringement of rights now by being anti-2A. What irony.

@yesitschelle

16 күн бұрын

@@Anon54387 It's applying Thomas's logic, showing how illogical said logic must be. He picks parts of the constitution he likes and dates he likes and calls that originalism. He doesn't refer to the whole, fully amended document. Ever.

This is getting ridiculous with Thomas... It's almost like he gave a contrary opinion just to get a contrary opinion. He's a 100% disgrace to the entire country and he has to be deposed and replaced.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Or he actually has a valid point. Give his dissent a read.

And Uncle Thomas the lone dissenting vote.Yet another reason for him to GO!!!

A dishonest person doesn't care.

Thomas is a crook and should be placed in jail after being convicted of taking bribes.

@mark-ish

19 күн бұрын

he can share a cell with alito.

@pete3882

16 күн бұрын

I guess joe can follow him, the bog guy.

@patrickthebutcher

15 күн бұрын

@@pete3882 thanks for letting everyone know that you're an ignorant Trumpanzee mouthbreather.

So let’s get that straight: that LUNATIC reckons that the person convicted of domestic violence can be permitted to possess a firearm? WHO the living f does he think he is?

@F16_viper_pilot

18 күн бұрын

I don’t think the decision requires the person be “convicted”, merely accused. If that’s the case, then this is a bad decision because it goes against the foundation of the Constitution that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

@casterakabadman805

18 күн бұрын

​​@@F16_viper_pilot Everything is one extreme or another. Smh our society is a circus, we aren't evolving alongside one another. This party VS party mayhem will be the end of us. It's not sustainable alongside many other destructive cycles we see prevalent. Criminals literally celebrate gun laws, we also have a problem with shootings and the solution based logic isn't allowed to appeal. These political machines don't run on solution...They're perpetuated and fueld by the problems. We the ppl...we're supposed to forge solution TOGETHER. Respect to everyone here. ⚔️

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Due process. Look it up. That's the concern here.

@F16_viper_pilot

15 күн бұрын

@@Anon54387 Exactly!

Thank you fir spelling out key details of the different briefs.

Good show, Harry! Color me disgusted by the Supreme Court.

Only in US. How ridiculous this all sounds to people from other countries. Time to get better gun laws- ban hand guns and the right to carry a gun. Get rid of all guns except hunting guns that are not automatics. End the gun culture and save lives. All people who buy guns should go through vigorous weeks long training and evaluation and all guns should be licenced, like cars.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Only about 300,000 Americans own automatic weapons, they are limited to those that were in private ownership as of 1986. I bet you can't find the last time a crime was committed with one of those, it is very, very, very rare. That being said, a license to exercise a right is hugely problematic.

@momoplazahamlet

16 күн бұрын

@@Anon54387 Yes, licensing would be difficult, the Federal Government in Canada tried to do this, but some parts were reversed when a different government came into power. Likely just strenthening required training and maybe an evaluation related to mental health and criminal past, would save lives. As a Canadian I also think it is crazy that people can carry concealed and unconsealed weapons in public places. This has made me reluctant to travel to states with poor gun laws.

Thomas is a joke and an embarrassment to the justice system

@mark-ish

19 күн бұрын

When you stay beyound your 'competent years', this happens.

@terasesnyder1626

18 күн бұрын

Always has been. He was just the "token " welcomed because he was conservative and ripe for corruption. Anita Hill tried to warn us.

@jameseden8486

17 күн бұрын

Justice Thomas is wrong about everything in my opinion but he nonetheless is one of nine people who shape how our laws are interpreted. I think many of his problems stem from his wife and her MAGA FRIENDS!

@BBlair-if8tj

17 күн бұрын

@@jameseden8486And his willingness to go along with them.

Also, in some states, the local police dont just arrest the aggressor, but both parties engaging, the couple. So both end up with a domestic charge.

What did they do to corrupt judges? Dragged through mud... Horsewhipped? Whatever Thomas gets, Alito too.

@SallyShockley

19 күн бұрын

What did they do to corrupt judges? Big Money bought their way in through elections..We needed CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM before the 2000 election. Remember when that was a hot topic ? Big Money came in by controlling election campaign spending and they bought the Republican Party, legislators and then Supreme Court judges with a lot of help from good old conspirator Mitch McConnell. BIG MONEY BOUGHT THEIR WAY IN . A measly 9 people decided who the President was going to be in 2000 and we ended up with frat-boy Bush '43 & real boss Cheny. Big Money made a fortune in the Republican wars and Republicans and their Big Money pals made a fortune in deregulation. One big successful conspiracy. Downhill from then on and here we are. 🤐

@tersalove3

17 күн бұрын

Tarred and feathered…

Here's how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. Those arms you have the right to bear should be limited to guns available in 1751

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Of course, why would we put guns in the hands of abusers Why in the world would anyone think that it’s OK to give guns to people did our mentally disturbed or criminally inclined?

I'm a strict originalist. Therefore, I own tactical nuclear weapons for self defense, as nowhere in the Constitution is this prohibited.

@bambiclark8861

19 күн бұрын

If you were an Originalist than you would understand that the 2nd amendment was made for each town to have a militia because we didn't have national guard at the time. Any body can read the Constitution and twist the words to meet ones needs. Donnie thinks because he has a gag order he doesn't have 1st amendment speech when terroristic threat or threatening or defaming aren't constitutional or even speech.

@scottdavis7730

19 күн бұрын

We should get together! I've got the land mines, tanks and biological weapons. We could form a well-regulated militia!

@yesitschelle

19 күн бұрын

@@bambiclark8861 Look up "parody" and "sarcasm" in the dictionary. @keithwald5349 is implying that the current interpretation is nonsense.

@scentials

18 күн бұрын

Aussie here. Not sure if you’ve ever watched Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies on Gun Control. He muses that people say you can’t change the 2nd amendment. His answer -yes you can, it’s called an amendment 😂

@NoirNouveau

18 күн бұрын

​@@scentialsfun fact. Jims death thrests peaked when he pulled that joke.

I love the detailed scrutiny you give to each justices opinions. We mortals often miss the important parts and need them pointed out to us. Thank you ❤️🇬🇧

Did Thomas collect his $million yet? Or, is it coming on recess?

I sincerely appreciate your explanations of the legal issues. Outstanding clarity.

Smashed it out of the park again Harry. Thanks!

The Supreme Court is Maga. We live in a post-law, post-fact nation.

@blackbandit1290

19 күн бұрын

You mean the right wing MAGA members of the supreme court. There are three who don't fit that description. Generalization doesn't help your description.

@mark-ish

19 күн бұрын

inclusive of a weak inept chief justice.

@alanburke1893

18 күн бұрын

Inevitable result of Vietnam, Reagan, , Iraq.... flailing idiocy of an Empire in decline

@chrism1503

16 күн бұрын

@blackbandit1290 - She didn’t say “all of the justices”, she said the court. Majority are right wing.

@pete3882

16 күн бұрын

​@blackbandit1290 Yeah, because having a person who doesn't know what a woman is was a great choice. 😂

It seemed like a “DUH” decision. Shooting at witnesses to his dragging a woman by her hair through the park. I know what I’d like to give him, but I wasn’t brought up to say things like that.

Corrupt Thomas should not even be on the Supreme Court

@oldbeatpete

18 күн бұрын

Bush token black. Watch the docu on him- he was a child of abuse at the hand and mind of his nasty grandfather.

Thank you, Harry for your detailed explanation.

Lock him up

America really needs to grow up when it comes to the Constitution and its role in legal matters. The people who wrote it had specifc sets of concerns in mind and the Constitution can only reasonably be said to apply to those concerns. Trying to fit every contemporary problem into its text and expecting to find an answer there , and then applying contemporary politics to decisons with an enduring consequence, is just tying yourself into an ever constricting knot of illogic. If the law, and the courts who enforce it, are to remain relevant and trusted it needs to be able to evolve over time , just as society does, and draw its findings from precedent, tradition but ultimately contemporary legislation. Whatever you might like to tell yourselves the Constitution is not a universal touchstone ,nobody in the room when it was written was thinking about abortion or domestic violence you won't find any sensible answers to how you DIRECTLY legislate those issues ( and others) in its text.

@oliver_twistor

18 күн бұрын

I think people who believe in a perfect Constitution that never has to change are the same people who believe in the literal text of the Bible, that everything written in there was written by God and is perfect and unchanging. The question everyone should be asking themselves is: if the Constitution were written today, would it look exactly the same as the one that exist? Would the Second Amendment be written at all? Would women and people of colour be considered full persons? I'm Swedish and I feel disheartened when thinking about the time the US constitution was written, Sweden was ruled by a monarch. Today, while millions of Americans would lose it all if they get sick, Swedes get to enjoy publicly funded healthcare and education. While American schoolkids have to be afraid of a school shooting, Swedish schoolkids can focus on their education (and look forward to publicly funded college in the future, if they so choose). I get the feeling that Americans were so proud of their Constitution that was very good at the time, compared to Europe, so they rested on their laurels and didn't notice how other countries such as Sweden took their crappier constitutions and gradually made them better, and eventually surpassed the US one in many respects.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

Sorry, but the words in the Constitution mean what they mean. To decide that the same words mean something different is to abandon rule of law, and to not keep limits in place on what government can do. The government should only be allowed to exercise powers we've granted to it, and should not be able to do things specifically prohibited to it in the Bill of Rights.

Very interesting- I guess we'll see how this plays out moving forward. Thanks Harry!

Thanks, Harry.

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._ Since a well regulated Militia is the entire reason for the Second Amendment as stated in the Constitution, why are Militias never a part of the conversation when it comes to gun issues?

@oldbeatpete

18 күн бұрын

precisely. It's always about the individual right not the fact the FF wanted citizens to be able to riot.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

A well informed Congress, being necessary to the wise operation of government, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed. So I suppose only those in Congress have the right to books. BTW, if one had to be in a militia that'd make it a privilege. They'd not have put a privilege in the Bill of Rights. They would not have called it a right in the 2A itself. And they said shall not be infringed. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 says that there is a right to such arms allowed by law. The Americans recognized this was wide open for government to abuse the right (simply outlaw all arms) which is why they changed it to shall not be infringed. In the Bruen case, the lawyer trying to uphold the Sullivan Act tried to claim that the right only applied to those in a militia. John Roberts asked him why, then, didn't they simply say the right of the militia. That lawyer had no answer to that. It says the right of the people, it does not say the right of the militia.

As "monumental" as Harry says this is, _the case NEVER should have made it to SCOTUS._ Common sense, not just high-minded judges, tells us society can take away firearms from someone who has threatened his neighbors, shot at their house, fired a shot when a friend had his credit card rejected, and, oh yeah, is an adjudicated threat to his partner. SCOTUS also recognized how useless it was to send this case their way in their sharply worded rebuke to the 5th.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

The 5th Circuit applied Bruen as instructed, and gets a rebuke. Sigh.

Thanks so much for sharing 💙💙💙💙

Excellent analysis as usual! Thanks for your insights!

Imagine a decision that didn't go this way and Rahimi could get his gun back.......and then he wants to go on a date.

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

If he's that much of a threat why is he even out in society? Sounds like someone that cannot be trusted with a car, gasoline, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, any number of things or situations.

Hi Harry. This does not exonerate them from all the nasty rulings they have made so far, ending women's rights and claiming that a bump stock does not convert a rifle into a machine gun

Recall SCOTUS!!!!!

A 'level of generality' framework could be her answer to the court seeming to want to make a ruling for all time, instead of the specifics of DT's immunity argument.

Awesome!

This supreme court is extremely sticky.

Thank goodness sanity ruled on this case.

Awesome show! Go Barrett!

trying desperately to look like they are making decisions for 'both sides'.. how stupid do they think we are?

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

They sold out our rights to appease the left on this decision, but Churchill said that those who appease are just hoping the alligator eats them last. There is no appeasing the left, they are so power hungry that they'll keep pushing to infringe rights more and more and more.

Thanks for the insight.

good information

I can see Thomas’s decision given the violence towards black & brown peoples (slaves), & likely women & children, (right or wrong) was consistent in the days of the founders.

Hi Harry!😊

Thanks

Them judges are getting their money 💰 as fast as they can before ethics rules 😢

Has the damage already gone to far to fix, how do you reverse any of this shit. Is it even reversable

Thank you for this analysis: it's one of the most helpful and useful pieces you've done. It also gives me a little bit of hope that the Supreme Court might move in a better direction; perhaps all the glaring spotlights on their failings will help with that. It sounds to me like a fundamentally humane decision.

So traditional as in going by what the people who wrote the Constitution said. Well, the people who wrote the Constitution said that it is a living document that needs to be interpreted with the changing of times

If "mister" Thomas insists on being an originalist, he would not be qualified to be on the court. He was not considered a person -- originally!

Clarence, Had Already Taken The Money, Harry!!!!!!!!!!!!

💙

Punctilious? Never heard that one before😂

I wonder how Thomas feels about the view of miscegenation popular when the Constitution was originally penned? If a state outlawed it (again) today would that be within the protection of State's Rights?

Thomas is getting more dangerous all the time.

70years is a LONG time!?

The current SC is not worth a grain of salt except for three Justices, those being: Kagan, Sotomayor, Brown-Jackson. The world watches and is aghast, appalled, horrified.

💙💙💙

thanks

❤❤❤ Great explanation.

Remove Thomas!!! Corrupt!

Common sense, thank you. Shouldn’t be looking into history, laws should reflect the current times

Right. So where the Constitution says nothing (e.g., "women" are never mentioned), you go to the 18th-century British Gentlemen's Magazine for legal norms.

If a person wants to have weapons, that person should not break the law or have a DV record.

Dont be fooled,they ruled in a way that really was a no brainer, lots of pats on the back,softening everyone up for when the shoe drops in the immunity case

Harry, do you think Coney-Barrett might end up a dark horse on the court? Coming to save the day with sanity?

@oldbeatpete

18 күн бұрын

(there's always one that defies expectations).

I’m all for common sense…the rarest of all the senses…😲

Someone should remind Tjomas that domestic violence wasn't a big issue when the Constitution was written.

I really appreciate this reflection on the Supreme Court. This case gave them a chance to look at nuance given the starkness of the case. Kind of guns vs women (for the most part). Domestic violence. I’m watching Barrett (spelling). As a feminist it’s hard for me to believe her Catholicism will override her possible empathy for us women.

@oliver_twistor

18 күн бұрын

I agree. Also, the evidence is quite clear on that women who live in households with firearms are far more likely to be killed by their intimate partner than women in households without firearms. For women, having firearms as available as they are in the US is a net negative. Many gun rights activists love to argue that women are safer in the US because of guns, despite the grim statistics. Far more women have been killed by guns than saved by them.

Harry! Have the hostage takers made any demands?! We’ll get you out!

@BklynNY471

19 күн бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@msvulcanspock

19 күн бұрын

Seriously Harry needs to be out of the US during the election because even if Biden wins with a landslide Trump will lie and try and activate his MAGA followers to violence. Harry might be at risk.

@jpkatz1435

19 күн бұрын

​@@BklynNY471Harry, hang tough Seal Team 6 is on the way.

@BklynNY471

18 күн бұрын

@@jpkatz1435 Harry, blink twice if you're ok.

💙💙💙💙

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but at the time the constitution was written, weren't wives closer to property under the law? Spouse abuse wasn't even really a crime. It was considered immoral but legally, a husband could get violent with his wife without fear of the law. And again, if I am wrong, please educate me.

The constitution is not set in amber, it is designed to grow with the culture of the society of the time.😊

@Anon54387

16 күн бұрын

So you think the same words somehow magically mean something different now?

Lets be honest. The recent legal complexity has become crazy. Do we want crazy people to own guns? If No, how do we deal with it?

I wouldn’t be celebrating yet.

The first thing to go to comply with the founding principles is to dispose of the Supreme Court because it didn’t have any constitutional definition to be a part in government necessity in being a necessary legal entity to hold a government and a constitutional agency proclaimed to be an American government branch in consideration or even referenced as a governmental entity! The Supreme Court is not only the singular lifetime appointment in the country but also is the only supreme authority in the separate branches of federal government that is completely comprised of government representatives who are not legally authorized to create and install the most powerful and lone lifetime appointments and give them the power to do whatever they believe will be beneficial to them. And ultimately provides them with more power and influence over the American nations elected representatives and presidential leadership as our democratic representation and voice of the people! Who would have to acknowledge the president when asked to align with the American people to ensure their security and prosperity in the world today if the president can be denied the power of a leadership that is held by the people to make decisions that accurately reflect their decisions and understanding of our international affairs as a nation with freedom and equality to be guaranteed and protected from any threat of abuse! The president has the authority and duty to make another equal branch of government accountable and be made to comply with all laws that are being investigated and disclosed by the media to prove the illegal and corrupt practices that the people are being punished for and their personal gain from the abuse of power! The congressional branch is the branch of government that created the Supreme Court and is responsible for its appointments to be made the final decision makers for all legal disputes even over the other branches of our government and their powers to regulate and ensure our authorities are not compromised or corrupt to the peoples harm and detriment by our own protectors and government representatives who are legally bound to our principles and constitutional rights! If the separate branches of government can force the legal powers of independent power to accept any other branches to make their legislative conduct and to obey their decisions without the right or authority to refute the overreaching attempt to impose its authority to hinder and interfere with the political and equally powerful branch of government to influence and obstruct the people’s elected representative and fraudulently corrupt government credibility and legitimacy to be an important part of the security and prosperity to the world and to ensure we have the backing as a beneficial and important partnership that is a great opportunity and equally valuable! But the congressionally created Supreme Court will not be accountable to any other government branch including the branch that is responsible for its existence and the appointees that make up the entire body,congress! And it feels it has no restrictions or rules that prevent it from interfering with or preventing any other branch from doing its work and being independent and granted the power to run its own administrative agendas to the people that are affected by the promises it makes and delivers to the people! The interference of elected government officials by unelected government is the definition of the people being denied their freedom by a government which has been fabricated by a separate government that is not the actual authority to set a supreme authority that is supposed to hold them accountable to the people and other branches of government to be maintained and enforced by the laws of this country! If a state court case makes it to the state high court that is the end of the court process of objection and understanding the case information required to make the right decision. The Supreme Court is not to make a further delay in a state matter that doesn’t have a constitutional mandate to be enforced and is overriding an illegitimate decision that would contradict the Constitution and federal laws that govern all states and citizens! This claim that the state has the final authority over its citizens and laws that govern them and not the federal Supreme Court does the opposite of what it claims to believe is its position to participate in legal jurisdiction. Making it as an unnecessary court without any constitutional authority to enforce any laws that the federal constitution doesn’t already apply to the nation! It decided that the states are to regain their rights to self govern without enforcement of its jurisdiction over their sovereign states who have the same rights to be independent! And if they do attempt to enforce sovereign states to be governed by its authority and legal precedent the government has the responsibility to intervene and punish the state that is violating federal laws and protections for all citizens! This means the country has no use for a Supreme Court to pretend it has to be the law that has to be followed! The congressional body is the only way that federal law is enacted, and the department of justice is the enforcement agency that is responsible for federal laws being applied! The Supreme Court has no power to interpret constitutional or congressional law that has been passed and is being enforced! It can only rule on current laws and dispatch justice based on previous precedent and law enforcement decisions!

I am sure one of Thomas's handlers has a domestic violence charge in his past and paid Thomas to rule in his favor. Whether this happened or not, we will never know about Thomas because he has been compensated by Harlen Crowe and others...Leo comes to mind, to rule in their favor. So every ruling Thomas makes, we are rightfully to assume he has been paid for that vote!!😂😂😂😂😂😂

Supreme Court does not have authority to change Constitution!