Clarence Thomas IS awesome

[Pokebball]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Justice Thomas sprung a killer question on the ACLU lawyer: "What remedy are you seeking?" Strangio, flummoxed by such a seemingly simple question said an injunction. Justice Thomas then asked "practically, you would get different treatment based on sex?" and the trap was laid. Strangio said the plaintiff (a girl who identifies as a boy) would be allowed to get drugs for "a typical male puberty" despite having a "birth sex [of] female." That answer made clear that girls who identify as boys would get a right under the Constitution to testosterone, but boys who identify as boys would not, which is...sex discrimination! Genius.

 

Killer exchange by Thomas. ACLU lawyer ***** his pants

[B-Man]

 

 

Justice Thomas Destroys the Case for Nationwide Injunctions With One Devastating Question

Matt Margolis

 

 

During Supreme Court oral arguments in the Trump v. CASA, Washington, and New Jersey cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a surgical takedown of the legal rationale for nationwide injunctions, using just one line.

 

The case centers around whether lower courts can issue sweeping injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, even when only a handful of plaintiffs are before the court. Representing the United States, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such broad orders violate established legal norms and Supreme Court precedent.

 

“We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction,” Sauer told the Court. “There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the Court’s opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it’s profoundly wrong.”

 

Sauer continued, listing key precedents that have rejected expansive injunctive relief. “If you look at the cases that either party cite, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite — like National Treasury Employees Union, Perkins, Frothingham, and Massachusetts v. Mellon, going back to Scott v. Donald — in all of those, those are cases where the Court considered and addressed the sort of universal — well, in that case, statewide — provision of injunctive relief.”

 

He emphasized, “When the Court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.’”

 

That’s when Justice Thomas stepped in and cut through the legal weeds with a devastatingly simple observation.

 

“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” he asked.

 

Sauer didn’t hesitate: “That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s.”

 

He went on to explain that nationwide injunctions didn’t truly explode until 2007. “In our cert petition in Summers v. Rhode Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.”

 

Thomas’s concise question — “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” — hit the heart of the issue. With that simple question, he challenged the idea that such drastic judicial remedies were historically essential, even during one of the most tumultuous and morally urgent periods in American history: the civil rights era, a time when federal courts began issuing broader remedies to dismantle Jim Crow laws and enforce desegregation. 

 

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/15/justice-thomas-destroys-case-for-nationwide-injunctions-with-one-devastating-question-n4939815

[BillsFanNC]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

                                                     

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

The People’s Justice

 

The leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, is also the people’s justice. Is that paradoxical? Not to me, it isn’t.

 

We live under the rule of law, which means that we live under the rule of words. Words can, of course, be ambiguous, and applying them to a particular situation can be tricky. But any good-faith effort to apply the laws or the Constitution to a particular case must always begin with a common-sense understanding of the words in question: what they mean to a normal reader.

 

When proponents of the Constitution argued for its adoption, as in the Federalist Papers, they did not say that delegates to state conventions should take it on faith; that it is too hard for a normal person to understand; that only a small priesthood of initiates could tell you what it really means. No: everyone assumed that the language of the Constitution was normal English, and it could be understood by ordinary persons of good intelligence.

 

Again, that doesn’t mean that there could be no disagreement or room for debate, but rather that Americans of good intelligence could engage in those debates on an equal footing. Certainly no one at the time suggested that the words of the Constitution had some arcane meaning that would be “discovered,” and would take our government in a new direction, 100 or 200 years hence. I don’t suppose anyone would have voted to adopt the Constitution if it had been sold on that basis.

 

This is why I have long thought that it would be a good idea to have one or two Supreme Court justices who are not lawyers. These days, most Supreme Court justices are members of a caste who likely have been aiming for a position on the Court since high school. Nothing wrong with that, perhaps, but it would be good to have one or two members of the Court whose experience is different–someone who spent his career in the business world, preferably.

 

All of this is a preface to the following brief clip of Justice Thomas explaining his judicial philosophy as a “textualist.” My comment would be, as a judge, if you are not a textualist, what in the world are you? Thomas has of course expounded on his views many times in various forums, and this brief clip is only a glimpse into his thinking. But, in part because it is brief, I thought it was worth sharing with our readers:

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/07/the-peoples-justice.php