For some reason, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was asked if he’s contemplating retirement. The answer is no. He has no plans to go anywhere. However, Thomas answered the question like a total boss.
(…BOLD MINE…) From New York Times:
Thomas noted, “I have no idea where this stuff comes from.“
Justice Thomas, in a relaxed and reflective mood, was interviewed by David Rubenstein, a financier and philanthropist, in the Supreme Court’s courtroom as part of a series of lectures sponsored by the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Then, the mic drop moment as Thomas said, “I really don’t have a lot of stress cheerfully. I cause stress.”
Students at a Georgia college want Justice Thomas’ name removed from a building. But there’s a problem.
They have no flippin’ clue why!
Justice Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t want to make any waves. On one hand it is understandable, on the other it’s kind of ridiculous.
No matter how much one tries to please the left it never works. Ever.
Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t been a solid conservative during his time on the high court, but Clarence Thomas has.
Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the four liberal justices over a Planned Parenthood case, while Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented.
Thomas wasn’t happy, pointing out that his colleagues are fearful.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, joined the court’s four liberal jurists in turning away a pair of petitions from Kansas and Louisiana seeking the ban on abortion providers
Thomas, suggesting most of his colleagues were fearful of taking up a challenge involving Planned Parenthood, asserted the cases weren’t about abortion rights but whether individuals have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut a particular provider from its Medicaid program.
Thomas wrote, “Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
He also wrote, “Because of this Court’s inaction, patients in different States — even patients with the same providers — have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions.“