What does Sup Forums think about Justice Clarence Thomas?

What does Sup Forums think about Justice Clarence Thomas?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission_v._Abercrombie_&_Fitch_Stores#Opinion_of_the_Court
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
youtu.be/iigUgifvBvc?t=2280
publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Glenn-v.-Brumby.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He's a big guy

Based because he's the only judge that throws precedent into the trash where it belongs

>Hurr past rulings were wrong so we have to keep being wrong so we'll be consistently wrong

I don't usually agree with Clarence Thomas on many positions, but I think he was right on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission_v._Abercrombie_&_Fitch_Stores#Opinion_of_the_Court

freaky dude

for you

He's a pimp who liberals tried to frame for sexual assault.

Is he one of those "kiss up to whitey and trash my race" coons?

Kek, Abercrombie and Fitch discriminated against my buddy. Said he wasnt tall enough and that they have structure hiring standards.

>I don't usually agree with Clarence Thomas on many positions
What was he wrong on?

No, he's just conservative. He's never trashed blacks.

Koon is spelt with a k if you are referring to employed blacks that you are jealous of Tariq.

As someone who used to work there, that is utter bullshit. Some of my co-workers were 5'7'' and were hired on the spot.

>I don't usually agree with Clarence Thomas on many positions

user what you post is your business, but why would you go around telling people you're wrong about almost everything?

/ourguy/ who is based as fuck

>Pryor less conservative than kethledge and gorsuch

[doubt intensifies]

Our store is in downtown Los Angeles, maybe different hiring standards.

The women who worked their were sexy though.

A true role model for everyone.

you're probably only focused on a single issue as your barometer.

he's one of the 10 okay black Americans!

...

Go back to Mexico if you like civil law so much.

No I think it's because, believe it or not, judges rule based on their interpretation philosophy as well as their ideology. You can be as conservative as humanly possible, but if you're interpreting a law written by liberals, and hand a ruling based on accurate interpretation, are you now less conservative on some dickwad's chart? Apparently so.

He ruled in favor of tranny rights.

He is an OG that survived a hi-tech lynching.

Liberals hate him so he must be doing something right

The constitution is the highest law of the land not supreme court precedent
also muh precedent goes out the wind when it goes against muh human rights

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

We are living in a humanist theocracy

Was the law in favor of tranny rights?

If you don't know that, you don't know if the ruling was liberal activism.

>muh stare decisis

Higher courts can overrule themselves. Poorly decided cases don't have to be law in perpetuity.

What the fuck are you talking about?

He ruled that the equal protection clause protects trannies from employment discrimination.

>American education

...

He's a Nigger.

name one decision he was on the wrong side of

...

he's alright, for being a nigger
from what i understand, his judgements were similar to Scalias, so he gets to live on DOTR

God I'm so glad Obama wasn't able to get a third justice, Sotomayor and Kagan are fucking awful.

they were even better

Being subhuman Nigger.
Nice Try Kike. Sup Forums will never support a Nigger

i've only ever skimmed the topic. if you've researched it in any depth, i'll take your word for it

Holy shit. That is my best friends name...

...

Best one of the bunch right now.

Doubt Trump will be able to nominate someone better.

Monsanto shill

He seems to be an excellent justice...That the left tried to frame for sexual assualt. so he's breddy gud.

Scalia balked on gutting the commerce clause

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

he likes to sleep.

>Supporting A nigger.
The fuck are you doing

Sauce on this good sir.

citation needed

>tfw Ginsburg and Breyer are old as fuck and could retire or die any moment
>tfw Trump may get to fill 3 seats, 2 of them vacated by libs

Cross burning

maybe we can deport Sotomayor?

> a Virginia statute against cross burning

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

Bill of Rights was never meant to be incorporated to the states

Oy vey goy, why would you support the most right wing justice on the Supreme Court? Our goal to undermine the United States and usher in a new era of degeneracy demands that you stop supporting him. Can't you see that he's a nigger?

youtu.be/iigUgifvBvc?t=2280

read his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, based af.

>tfw was good looking enough to get hired at one of the stores in LA

fugged a hot girl got a discount on their clothes then quit

Stores have a right to not hire ugly people.

The equal protection clause protects everyone from employment discrimination. That's why its called equal protection, and that's why trannies are protected. But of course that's not what you meant, the real question is what is discrimination?

His state employer fired him because he wasn't conforming to male gender roles. He was discriminated against on the basis of sex, as females under the same employ were obviously allowed to do this.

I can see how it's the logical consequence of both equal protection and employment discrimination laws, even though I don't like the results. But that's a result of the law's protections, not the ruling.

Niggers are degenerate. No matter how Right Winged they are.They are nothing more but Subhumans to be lynched by the Aryan Race

This is the judge that rarely talks right?

...

>His state employer fired him because he wasn't conforming to male gender roles. He was discriminated against on the basis of sex, as females under the same employ were obviously allowed to do this.

He was fired because he's mentally ill, not because of his sex.

>He was fired because he's mentally ill, not because of his sex.

Are you assuming that or did brumby actually use that defense? I'd like to see how that went down.

Our best. He triggers the anti-human left so hard.

You're trash.

What case are we talking about?

publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Glenn-v.-Brumby.pdf

I thought Hardiman was supposed to be a conservative...

Well nevermind, the plaintiff claimed that himself

>Glenn also claimed
that her constitutional rights were violated because Brumby
terminated her employment due to her medical condition, known as Gender Identity
Disorder ("GID").

You can't discriminate against an employee based on a mental illness unless it interferes with the job.

The good news is that transgenderism is legally a mental illness.

>You can't discriminate against an employee based on a mental illness unless it interferes with the job.

Says who?

>You can't discriminate against an employee based on a mental illness unless it interferes with the job.
not according to the equal protection clause which the case is based on

Lies

Actually I'm probably wrong, I assumed so because why else would the plaintiff use that as an argument instead of sex discrimination? But people use bad strategies every day.

Right, which is why the court ruled it as sex discrimination. I wonder if that would have worked differently if the defense argued they fired him because of mental illness and not gender conformity. Instead he set himself up.

>Brumby testified at his deposition that he fired Glenn because he considered it "inappropriate" for her to appear at work dressed as a woman and that he found it "unsettling" and "unnatural" that Glenn would appear wearing women's clothing. Brumby testified that his decision to dismiss Glenn was based on his perception of Glenn as "a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman," and Brumby admitted that his decision to fire Glenn was based on "the sheer fact of the transition." Brumby's testimony provides ample direct evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Brumby acted on the basis of Glenn's gender non-conformity.

Nice projection nigger.

>because he's the only judge that throws precedent into the trash where it belongs
>only
kill yourself Sonia Sotomayor

Even so, someone shouldn't be fired if they are mentally ill, unless it affects their work.

I should be able to fire anyone for whatever reason I want

All the other judges consider precedent, even if just to a small degree, except thomas

Apparently everyone who states common facts is a salsa dancer

We're talking about interpreting law, not right and wrong

>All the other judges consider precedent,
but they don't when it becomes inconvenient

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

I don't know about the US, but I am sure it's illegal here to fire someone without a decent reason.