Read on Twitter
1 of 53
Providence, I’d like to think, smiles upon us all from time to time.
If one is especially fortunate, it smiles upon you, the individual, at your most difficult of moments.
Providence, I’d like to think, smiles upon us all from time to time.
If one is especially fortunate, it smiles upon you, the individual, at your most difficult of moments.
2 of 53
But what if you’re a Justice on the Supreme Court and Providence smiles upon you?
Can an individual providential moment, occurring during an existential crisis for the nation brought on in no small part by a failure of the legal profession, serve a national purpose?
But what if you’re a Justice on the Supreme Court and Providence smiles upon you?
Can an individual providential moment, occurring during an existential crisis for the nation brought on in no small part by a failure of the legal profession, serve a national purpose?
3 of 53
I ask whether a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding clear failure of the legal profession, in general, and the judiciary, in particular, can convey a cloak of Providence to the entire nation?
I suspect we’re about to find out.
I ask whether a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding clear failure of the legal profession, in general, and the judiciary, in particular, can convey a cloak of Providence to the entire nation?
I suspect we’re about to find out.
4 of 53
We’ve heard that good things come to those who wait, those who prepare while waiting, those who lay a foundation for the edifice they intend to construct. For this moment in our nation’s history, and for Justice Thomas, that foundation might have been laid down in 2016.
We’ve heard that good things come to those who wait, those who prepare while waiting, those who lay a foundation for the edifice they intend to construct. For this moment in our nation’s history, and for Justice Thomas, that foundation might have been laid down in 2016.
5 of 53
To me, Justice Thomas’ very necessary foundation began with his first sentence in a 2016 dissent in which he was joined by Justice Samuel Alito.
To me, Justice Thomas’ very necessary foundation began with his first sentence in a 2016 dissent in which he was joined by Justice Samuel Alito.
6 of 53
Quoting Justice Thomas:
"Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. "
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . .
Quoting Justice Thomas:
"Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. "
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . .
7 of 53
That’s from the case of Nebraska v. Colorado and the particulars from that dispute aren’t the important facts for the purposes of my discussion. Nor do we need to get deep into the weeds of Justice Thomas’ originalism.
That’s from the case of Nebraska v. Colorado and the particulars from that dispute aren’t the important facts for the purposes of my discussion. Nor do we need to get deep into the weeds of Justice Thomas’ originalism.
8 of 53
The dissent is readily available and understandable.
Read it for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf
The dissent is readily available and understandable.
Read it for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf
9 of 53
Volokh Conspiracy, 2017:
"At its base, originalism stands for the proposition that the meaning of the Constitution remains the same until it is properly changed. And this is because the Constitution is the law that governs those who govern us." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/09/the-end-of-originalism-round-two-ledewitz-doubles-down/
Volokh Conspiracy, 2017:
"At its base, originalism stands for the proposition that the meaning of the Constitution remains the same until it is properly changed. And this is because the Constitution is the law that governs those who govern us." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/09/the-end-of-originalism-round-two-ledewitz-doubles-down/
10 of 53
I’d go further and say the Constitution is the contract individual Americans have with one another in our *individual* capacity as the ultimate *grantors* of authority in this great nation.
I’d go further and say the Constitution is the contract individual Americans have with one another in our *individual* capacity as the ultimate *grantors* of authority in this great nation.
11 of 53
That said, what’s important here aren’t semantics or theories of constitutional interpretation.
What’s important here comes before one arrives at such language battles.
At least it should.
That said, what’s important here aren’t semantics or theories of constitutional interpretation.
What’s important here comes before one arrives at such language battles.
At least it should.
12 of 53
No, in Nebraska v. Colorado Justice Thomas is doggedly highlighting the First Principles confluence of:
[1] the need for authority granted by the Constitution and
[2] respect for grants of authority or limiting constraints imposed by statutory law.
No, in Nebraska v. Colorado Justice Thomas is doggedly highlighting the First Principles confluence of:
[1] the need for authority granted by the Constitution and
[2] respect for grants of authority or limiting constraints imposed by statutory law.
13 of 53
*No* judge, a servant to US, is allowed to dance outside of those two components of that particular box.
Not properly, that is.
*No* judge, a servant to US, is allowed to dance outside of those two components of that particular box.
Not properly, that is.
14 of 53
Since this dissent was written, three Justices have left the court.
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They have been replaced by Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, respectively.
Since this dissent was written, three Justices have left the court.
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They have been replaced by Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, respectively.
15 of 53
Would these three new Justices likely have agreed with Thomas and Alito in their 2016 dissent?
For me, the odds are better than 50-50 they would.
It should be noted here that Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016 and this decision was rendered on March 21, 2016.
Would these three new Justices likely have agreed with Thomas and Alito in their 2016 dissent?
For me, the odds are better than 50-50 they would.
It should be noted here that Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016 and this decision was rendered on March 21, 2016.
16 of 53
So, three votes were quite probable in 2016 on a matter with primary importance affecting statutory law.
The Texas lawsuit, however, ratchets things up to the highest level possible.
Constitutional rights.
Our contract with one another and our Sovereign states.
So, three votes were quite probable in 2016 on a matter with primary importance affecting statutory law.
The Texas lawsuit, however, ratchets things up to the highest level possible.
Constitutional rights.
Our contract with one another and our Sovereign states.
17 of 53
Thomas noted at the outset of Nebraska v. Colorado, Article III, §2, clause 2 provides original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Further, 28 United States Code, §1251(a) provides exclusive jurisdiction to the USSC of *all* controversies between two or more States.
Thomas noted at the outset of Nebraska v. Colorado, Article III, §2, clause 2 provides original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Further, 28 United States Code, §1251(a) provides exclusive jurisdiction to the USSC of *all* controversies between two or more States.
18 of 53
Justice Thomas goes on to emphatically state that *nothing* in §1251(a) suggests that the Court possesses the option to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy.
Nothing !!!
Justice Thomas goes on to emphatically state that *nothing* in §1251(a) suggests that the Court possesses the option to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy.
Nothing !!!
19 of 53
He essentially asks, in the face of such clarity, where does the Court derive the authority to deem it has discretionary power to decide whether or not to hear a case or controversy between two or more states?
Where, dammit, where !?!
He essentially asks, in the face of such clarity, where does the Court derive the authority to deem it has discretionary power to decide whether or not to hear a case or controversy between two or more states?
Where, dammit, where !?!
20 of 53
In an era where the judiciary has *wildly* overstepped its bounds, this is not an inconsequential question.
In an era where the judiciary has *wildly* overstepped its bounds, this is not an inconsequential question.
21 of 53
To get a sense for how imbalanced our government has become, as between the three branches, you should read or re-read Attorney General William Barr’s November 15, 2019 Olson Lecture: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture
To get a sense for how imbalanced our government has become, as between the three branches, you should read or re-read Attorney General William Barr’s November 15, 2019 Olson Lecture: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture
22 of 53
For instance, Barr addressed (in part) the issue of our blatantly out-of-control national injunctions with five problems they specifically create:
[1] nationwide injunctions have no foundation in courts’ Article III jurisdiction or traditional equitable powers;
For instance, Barr addressed (in part) the issue of our blatantly out-of-control national injunctions with five problems they specifically create:
[1] nationwide injunctions have no foundation in courts’ Article III jurisdiction or traditional equitable powers;
23 of 53
[2] they radically inflate the role of district judges, allowing any one of more than 600 individuals to singlehandedly freeze a policy nationwide, a power that no single appellate judge or Justice can accomplish;
[2] they radically inflate the role of district judges, allowing any one of more than 600 individuals to singlehandedly freeze a policy nationwide, a power that no single appellate judge or Justice can accomplish;
24 of 53
[3] they foreclose percolation and reasoned debate among lower courts, often requiring the Supreme Court to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture with limited briefing;
[3] they foreclose percolation and reasoned debate among lower courts, often requiring the Supreme Court to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture with limited briefing;
25 of 53
[4] they enable transparent forum shopping, which saps public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; and
[4] they enable transparent forum shopping, which saps public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; and
26 of 53
[5] they displace the settled mechanisms for aggregate litigation of genuinely nationwide claims, such as Rule 23 class actions.
[5] they displace the settled mechanisms for aggregate litigation of genuinely nationwide claims, such as Rule 23 class actions.
27 of 53
In that lecture Attorney General Barr rightly castigated the Judiciary and Congress for encroaching on the power of the Executive, writing:
In that lecture Attorney General Barr rightly castigated the Judiciary and Congress for encroaching on the power of the Executive, writing:
28 of 53
“Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.”
“Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.”
29 of 53
The criticism the attorney general delivered is but another form of the critique made by Justice Thomas.
Not one of our three co-equal branches of government is allowed to dance outside of their particular box.
The criticism the attorney general delivered is but another form of the critique made by Justice Thomas.
Not one of our three co-equal branches of government is allowed to dance outside of their particular box.
30 of 53
Not properly, that is.
Though generically co-equal, particular branches are given plenary power within certain spheres of activity.
Not properly, that is.
Though generically co-equal, particular branches are given plenary power within certain spheres of activity.
31 of 53
Barr’s historic Olson Lecture should be seriously studied by all American citizens.
When read in conjunction with Justice Thomas’ dissent in Nebraska v. Colorado, an inescapable conclusion in the Texas lawsuit is apparent.
Barr’s historic Olson Lecture should be seriously studied by all American citizens.
When read in conjunction with Justice Thomas’ dissent in Nebraska v. Colorado, an inescapable conclusion in the Texas lawsuit is apparent.
32 of 53
Through Providence, the only child of the Deep South on the USSC, a Black American outrageously wronged by a profoundly unserious United States Senator from Delaware in his confirmation hearings, sits at the center of a truly historic moment for America.
Ponder that!
Through Providence, the only child of the Deep South on the USSC, a Black American outrageously wronged by a profoundly unserious United States Senator from Delaware in his confirmation hearings, sits at the center of a truly historic moment for America.
Ponder that!
33 of 53
Continuously smeared by an equally unserious political class clearly intimidated by his intellect and fortitude, he has risen to be perhaps the single most influential Supreme Court Justice of his era.
Continuously smeared by an equally unserious political class clearly intimidated by his intellect and fortitude, he has risen to be perhaps the single most influential Supreme Court Justice of his era.
34 of 53
As noted by Ralph Rossum in his 2014 article, “Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration,” Antonin Scalia believed in a narrower interpretation of Originalism.
This is an important distinction.
Clarence Thomas is his *own* man.
As noted by Ralph Rossum in his 2014 article, “Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration,” Antonin Scalia believed in a narrower interpretation of Originalism.
This is an important distinction.
Clarence Thomas is his *own* man.
35 of 53
Read the article for yourself, it’s a damn good one: https://lawliberty.org/forum/understanding-clarence-thomas-the-jurisprudence-of-constitutional-restoration/
Read the article for yourself, it’s a damn good one: https://lawliberty.org/forum/understanding-clarence-thomas-the-jurisprudence-of-constitutional-restoration/
36 of 53
However, Rossum noted, on the question of “the gradual build-up of interpretations that, over time, can distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question and lead to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions” . . .
However, Rossum noted, on the question of “the gradual build-up of interpretations that, over time, can distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question and lead to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions” . . .
37 of 53
“Thomas is unquestionably the justice who is most willing to reject this build-up, this excrescence, and to [then] call on his colleagues to join him in scraping away past precedent and getting back to bare wood – to the original general meaning of the Constitution."
“Thomas is unquestionably the justice who is most willing to reject this build-up, this excrescence, and to [then] call on his colleagues to join him in scraping away past precedent and getting back to bare wood – to the original general meaning of the Constitution."
38 of 53
Ponder the majesty of all of this & the particularly American workings of Providence.
Here he stands now, this quintessential child of what it *means* to be an American, with the perfect case docketed for consideration.
Will it will be heard on the merits?
It must.
Ponder the majesty of all of this & the particularly American workings of Providence.
Here he stands now, this quintessential child of what it *means* to be an American, with the perfect case docketed for consideration.
Will it will be heard on the merits?
It must.
39 of 53
This perfect case, brought by a wide range of sovereign states, is positioned to re-establish a bedrock principle not only for the Judicial branch to follow but for the whole of a government operating in service to its masters: the citizenry of the United States.
This perfect case, brought by a wide range of sovereign states, is positioned to re-establish a bedrock principle not only for the Judicial branch to follow but for the whole of a government operating in service to its masters: the citizenry of the United States.
40 of 53
Justice Thomas spoke for many conservatives when he noted in Nebraska v. Colorado this most peculiar curiosity:
“The Court’s reasons for transforming its *mandatory*, original jurisdiction into discretionary jurisdiction have been rooted in *policy* considerations.”
Justice Thomas spoke for many conservatives when he noted in Nebraska v. Colorado this most peculiar curiosity:
“The Court’s reasons for transforming its *mandatory*, original jurisdiction into discretionary jurisdiction have been rooted in *policy* considerations.”
41 of 53
That is a very definite no-no for the Judicial branch, a wrong the lower courts have continued to incrementally implement down through the years.
And it has clearly spilled over into our varied state Supreme Courts.
That is a very definite no-no for the Judicial branch, a wrong the lower courts have continued to incrementally implement down through the years.
And it has clearly spilled over into our varied state Supreme Courts.
42 of 53
It has to stop, and it has to stop now.
It has to stop, and it has to stop now.
43 of 53
Through adversity, God gives His people strength.
No one can deny this election cycle has presented America with incredible difficulties.
Many of the rather obvious issues we’ve been forced to endure are not organic but totally manufactured. Some, by foreign actors.
Through adversity, God gives His people strength.
No one can deny this election cycle has presented America with incredible difficulties.
Many of the rather obvious issues we’ve been forced to endure are not organic but totally manufactured. Some, by foreign actors.
44 of 53
The nation has risen up in opposition to Critical Race Theory nonsense, Black Lives Matter lies, crazed and unscientific lockdowns, along with a host of other abominations, to speak loudly and give Donald Trump a landslide victory.
The nation has risen up in opposition to Critical Race Theory nonsense, Black Lives Matter lies, crazed and unscientific lockdowns, along with a host of other abominations, to speak loudly and give Donald Trump a landslide victory.
45 of 53
America gave him a victory so large, his opposition had to pause vote counting on Election Night in an unprecedented manner in order to have time to manufacture illegal votes and generate the *appearance* of close races in battleground states.
America gave him a victory so large, his opposition had to pause vote counting on Election Night in an unprecedented manner in order to have time to manufacture illegal votes and generate the *appearance* of close races in battleground states.
46 of 53
Their blatant (and shameful) form of election thievery cannot be allowed to stand.
Their blatant (and shameful) form of election thievery cannot be allowed to stand.
47 of 53
Providence will not allow it.
Providence will not allow it.
48 of 53
Holding the line in our Executive Branch is Donald Trump.
In our Legislative Branch, it had better be Mitch McConnell but also a diverse range of America-First politicians.
From *both* political parties.
Democrats *must* denounce this craziness.
Holding the line in our Executive Branch is Donald Trump.
In our Legislative Branch, it had better be Mitch McConnell but also a diverse range of America-First politicians.
From *both* political parties.
Democrats *must* denounce this craziness.
49 of 53
But in our Judicial Branch, we should be looking at a 9-0 result.
Standing tall and proud, however, after years of fighting an initially lonely battle against incredible odds, is the imposing presence of Justice Clarence Thomas.
But in our Judicial Branch, we should be looking at a 9-0 result.
Standing tall and proud, however, after years of fighting an initially lonely battle against incredible odds, is the imposing presence of Justice Clarence Thomas.
50 of 53
His position is strong on this issue, it is logical, and it appears to this writer to be incontrovertible.
His position is strong on this issue, it is logical, and it appears to this writer to be incontrovertible.
51 of 53
For me, the Supreme Court has no discretion in this matter.
As Justice Thomas has rightly indicated, it *must* hear the Texas lawsuit.
For me, the Supreme Court has no discretion in this matter.
As Justice Thomas has rightly indicated, it *must* hear the Texas lawsuit.
52 of 53
Further, the Supreme Court appears to have no choice but to rule in favor of Texas and those states that have joined its lawsuit.
Further, the Supreme Court appears to have no choice but to rule in favor of Texas and those states that have joined its lawsuit.
53 of 53
Let it be so.
Providence has provided a protective cloak for President Trump throughout his *first* term in office.
May he, and through him America, continue to find favor with the Master of the Universe in his *second* term.
Let it be so.
Providence has provided a protective cloak for President Trump throughout his *first* term in office.
May he, and through him America, continue to find favor with the Master of the Universe in his *second* term.
@threadreaderapp unroll
