• @Nightwingdragon
    link
    English
    275 months ago

    Because Thomas literally gave her that argument to make in the immunity ruling. She literally cited his comments and basically copied his ruling like a high school kid copying off the “smart” kid in the class.

    He basically told her “Hey, throw the case out. We’ve got your back.”

    • @cheese_greater
      link
      125 months ago

      Except nobody signed on to his concurrence. He was acting alone in his “analysis”

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        That’s the Thomas two-step. He uses these concurrences to issue marching orders to the judges below him, so that it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court and then his concurrence becomes precedent.

        • @Nastybutler
          link
          35 months ago

          Thomas is not the supreme court. And he’s starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He’s on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            They’ll rule it’s Constitutional to hunt Democrats for their pelts and you’ll still be pretending the Court is legitimate. 🙄

          • @Nightwingdragon
            link
            English
            15 months ago

            Thomas is not the supreme court. And he’s starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He’s on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.

            None of them went out of their way to distance themselves from his comments, either. They didn’t offer any kind of dissenting opinon. They didn’t speak out against his advisory opinion, which is supposed to be against SC norms. And they haven’t spoken out since. And given their rulings since gaining the supermajority, along with their “nuke it and everything close to it” approach to ruling on matters, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t gladly just go along with whatever Clarence Thomas says, or at the very least, not care enough to vote against him.

            This isn’t even the first time he gave an advisory opinion. Remember the literal list of cases he said he wanted to review and overturn? He wouldn’t be so brazenly and openly giving these literal roadmaps of what cases to bring before them if he didn’t believe he had at least four more votes. And none of them have given us any reason to believe otherwise.