On Friday, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer — a Federalist Society <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">speaker</a>, frequent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-draw-right-lessons-kavanaughs-bad-start-no-josh-hammer">commentator</a> on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">legal</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">issues</a>, and a <a href="https://firstliberty.org/team/josh-hammer/">constitutional attorney</a> by training — <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHhrDLqyWpY">joined</a> &#8220;The Conservative Review with <a href="https://twitter.com/rmconservative">Daniel Horowitz</a>&#8221; podcast for a wide-ranging conversation about a whole host of legal and judicial issues. The duo discussed the current <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-supreme-court-term-begins-today-here-is-what-conservatives-should-look-for">U.S. Supreme Court term</a>, the merits and flaws of the Court&#8217;s current &#8220;conservative&#8221; members, what to expect from the Court&#8217;s attention-grabbing cases this term, the strategic and visionary short-sightedness of many on the legal Right, the lay of the land of the modern &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-judicial-crisis-networks-open-attack-sen-josh-hammer">conservative legal movement</a>,&#8221; and the ultimate problem of reclaiming the Constitution from our culture of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">judicial supremacy</a>. The lattermost, judicial supremacy, is a topic on which Hammer has <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1151536557079375877">announced</a> he will have a piece of legal scholarship published this spring.
After Horowitz initially set the table for discussion, Hammer began the extensive chat by discussing why, on a first-principles level, the American people and the legal profession alike have lost a proper conception of what &#8220;the judicial power&#8221; in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii">Article III</a> of the U.S. Constitution actually means — including the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-pence-promises-challenge-nationwide-josh-hammer">extent and scope of the judicial branch&#8217;s binding</a> (or lack thereof) authority:
<blockquote>What we&#8217;re lacking on the broader 35,000-foot altitude level &#8230; is that we don&#8217;t understand what &#8220;the judicial power&#8221; and the Vesting Clause of Article III actually means. And contrary to to the judicial supremacists — contrary to the people who will elevate the 1958 judicial atrocity of <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/the-one-court-precedent-that-matters-in-the-scotus-debate/">Cooper v. Aaron</a>, which established judicial supremacy to the highest paean of the judicial totem pole — [what they say about judicial power] is actually a direct contravention of the expressed text of Chief Justice Marshall&#8217;s famous decree in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137">Marbury v. Madison</a> itself. &#8230;
In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall famously says: &#8220;[I]t is emphatically the province of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.&#8221; That&#8217;s what everyone always quotes, but what they never quote, Daniel, is literally the very next sentence after that, where Marshall also says: [&#8220;Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule.&#8221;] &#8230;
[T]he crux of &#8220;the judicial power&#8221; &#8230; applies obviously to the parties in the suit [but] it goes no further whatsoever. &#8230; This ultimately gets you to Abraham Lincoln, who obviously <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/lincoln-on-judicial-despotism">defied the Court</a> in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/20/lincoln-versus-judicial-supremacy/">Dred Scott</a> and all of that. So on a broader level, we as a society are &#8230; completely missing the scope of judicial power in this country and the legal academy, the legal profession — as someone who went to a top law school, I can tell you it is generally inculcated in the rising generation of law students this erroneous belief that is the basic nature of the binding authority of the courts. It&#8217;s very tragic.</blockquote>
Later in the dialogue, Horowitz and Hammer discussed and previewed the current Supreme Court term, discussed the problems in the juridical approaches of each of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, and explained why Justice Clarence Thomas — the purest originalist on the Court — is a unique and irreplaceable figure. They explained why the federal judiciary will always be a losing &#8220;one-way ratchet&#8221; for conservatives unless and until the &#8220;legal conservative movement&#8221; awakens, en masse, to the danger of subscribing to the judicial supremacist paradigm.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Why Conservatives Will Be Disappointed with the &#039;Conservative&#039; Supreme Court | Ep 509" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LHhrDLqyWpY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CR podcast screenshot 10.11.19

WATCH: Hammer On &#8216;The Conservative Review&#8217; Podcast: Everything You Need To Know For The Supreme Court Term

Brett Kavanaugh

Clarence Thomas

Constitution

John Roberts

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court

America&#8217;s reigning conservative Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, issued a blistering attack against &#8220;erroneous precedent&#8221; and the adherence to the legal principle of stare decisis in a decision on Monday as an obvious veiled attack against 1973&#8217;s Roe v. Wade, which enshrined abortion as a constitutional right.
Though the 7-2 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">concurring opinion</a> on Monday had no relation to the issue of abortion (it focused on double-jeopardy), Clarence Thomas used the court&#8217;s deference for precedent in that case to attack &#8220;demonstrably erroneous decisions&#8221; the courts had made in the past. According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-abandoning-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-touching-off-intense-roe-v-wade-speculation">Fox News</a>, experts have largely seen the justice&#8217;s blistering comments as laying the groundwork to overturn Roe v. Wade.
&#8220;When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,&#8221; Thomas wrote, adding that precedent &#8220;may remain relevant when it is not demonstrably erroneous.&#8221;
&#8220;The Constitution tasks the political branches&#8212;not the Judiciary&#8212;with systematically developing the laws that govern our society,&#8221; Thomas continued. &#8220;The Court&#8217;s role, by contrast, is to exercise the &#8216;Judicial Power,&#8217; faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the laws enacted by those branches.&#8221;
The decision on Monday &#8212; Gamble v. United States &#8212; determined if it would not be in violation of double-jeopardy if individuals were tried by the state and federal government for the same crime. Thomas sided with the majority while Gorsuch sided with Justice Ginsburg. Much of the decision hinged on decades-long precedent that Thomas did not find &#8220;erroneous.&#8221; On the issue of stare decisis, Thomas noted that the courts tend to invoke that principle with such strong fervency only in the cases when precedent seems &#8220;least defensible.&#8221;
&#8220;As I see it, we would eliminate a significant amount of uncertainty and provide the very stability sought if we replaced our malleable balancing test with a clear, principled rule grounded in the meaning of the text,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;The true irony of our modern stare decisis doctrine lies in the fact that proponents of stare decisis tend to invoke it most fervently when the precedent at issue is least defensible.&#8221;
&#8220;In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous&#8212;i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text&#8212;the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent,&#8221; the justice concluded. &#8220;A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision &#8230; is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power.&#8221;
Several legal experts have been attacking Justice Thomas for writing these words, saying he has laid a dangerous intellectual and legal groundwork for courts to uphold blatant attacks on Roe v. Wade, such as the laws passed in Alabama and Georgia. Kristen Clarke, the President and Executive Director of the Lawyers&#8217; Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News that the justice&#8217;s timing to issue such comments arouses suspicion.
&#8220;One can&#8217;t ignore the timing of Justice Thomas&#8217;s concurring opinion which comes at a moment when we are seeing a coordinated and relentless attack on Roe v. Wade across the country,&#8221; Clarke told the outlet. &#8220;The laws that have been adopted in several states violate the Court&#8217;s settled precedent in Roe. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas has made clear his willingness to reject precedents that he personally deems incorrect, a position that unnecessarily politicizes the Court.
&#8220;Justice Thomas&#8217;s view is fundamentally at odds with the way in which the Supreme Court has generally operated,&#8221; Clarke continued. &#8220;It is a view that threatens to further undermine the integrity of the Court and weaken the stability of the institution.&#8221;
Neal Katyal, a Georgetown Law professor and former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, said that settled precedents could theoretically be attacked based on Justice Thomas&#8217; words. &#8220;Justice Thomas is essentially laying the intellectual groundwork for a massive revisiting of settled precedents,&#8221; Katyal wrote. &#8220;This can prove to be very, very dangerous.&#8221;

Justice Clarence Thomas Attacks ‘Erroneous’ Precedent, Hinting At ‘Roe v. Wade’

Abortion

One would be hard-pressed to utilize adjectival alarmism that could sufficiently describe the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48075/full-crisis-cbp-records-yet-another-new-monthly-josh-hammer">outright national crisis</a> that is currently transpiring at our inundated southern border. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, over 144,000 aliens were apprehended between ports of entry or deemed admissible at points of entry in the month of May alone &#8212; thus representing a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48075/full-crisis-cbp-records-yet-another-new-monthly-josh-hammer">32% month-over-month increase</a> from the already-record-shattering April monthly tally. Looking solely at apprehensions between points of entry, May&#8217;s total of 132,887 was more than double the number of apprehensions from just February &#8212; the month when Trump declared the situation at the border so dire that he declared a national emergency to help allocate funding to construct a wall and begin the slow process of ameliorating the influx.
<a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/unprecedented-uncharted-largest-border-surge-border-patrol-history/">Uncharted</a>. Unprecedented. Unsustainable. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44291/data-suggest-no-relationship-between-central-josh-hammer">Bonkers</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1136331236593586176">Full-on emergency</a>. <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-march-statistics-southwest-border-migration">System-wide emergency</a>. One can insert any phrase of choice, but no phrase can truly account for the magnitude of the current problem. <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/shock-over-1-of-guatemala-honduras-entered-us-since-september">Over 1%</a> of the entire nation of Guatemala has entered &#8212; legally or (usually) illegally &#8212; the U.S. since September and, even more amazingly, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/a-third-of-guatemalans-plan-to-immigrate-to-the-us">one-third of the entire impoverished nation</a> plans to immigrate to the U.S. at some point in the future! Along with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46457/amidst-unprecedented-border-crisis-united-nations-josh-hammer">unvetted bogus asylees</a> coming from fellow &#8220;Northern Triangle&#8221; nations El Salvador and Honduras, the summation of this mass migrant influx is social transformation without republican representation that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46609/report-smugglers-and-cartels-profited-23-billion-josh-hammer">massively enriches</a> Mexican transnational cartel syndicates and leads to exacerbated <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/huge-sophisticated-operation-mexican-cartel-meth-lab-busted-atlanta-suburb/">narcotic</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47735/ice-tears-washington-state-enacting-sanctuary-city-josh-hammer">crime</a> epidemics in our nation&#8217;s interior.
Ideally, the Department of Homeland Security would begin by immediately acting to finish the job on its <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46601/hammer-why-did-dhs-abort-its-re-writing-infamous-josh-hammer">(inexplicably) aborted re-writing</a> of the erroneous, sovereignty-infringing Flores consent decree that dominated so much of the immigration-related 2018 media cycle. But the reality is also that President Donald Trump has many unilateral, statutorily delegated, and/or constitutionally inherent powers at his disposal to quell, contain, and ultimately stop this influx. As Ryan Girdusky recently tweeted, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182">8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)</a> tops the list:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There&#8217;s a long list of existing statute that gives <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> to power to fix this problem on his own: 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) 
8 U.S.C. § 1222(a) 
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) and (b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) 
18 U.S.C. § 1001 
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(C) <a href="https://t.co/nTHwmGFBXc">https://t.co/nTHwmGFBXc</a>
&#8212; Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1130891759393943554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
If properly enforced, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) could <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/we-can-keep-the-ports-open-to-commerce-secure-our-borders-and-eat-our-avocados-too/">single-handedly eliminate</a> this Central American-originated, Mexican cartel-orchestrated, <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/09/where-is-metoo-for-women-at-the-border/">harrowingly physically dangerous</a> assault on our nation&#8217;s collective sovereignty. Here is the relevant statutory text (emphasis added):
<blockquote>
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
</blockquote>
It does not take a lawyer to read 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and conclude that it is a wildly deferential statutory enactment. Indeed, pursuant to the text, the president can &#8220;suspend the entry of &#8230; any class of aliens&#8221; by mere &#8220;proclamation&#8221; if he deems the entry of those aliens to be &#8220;detrimental to the interests of the United States&#8221; (itself a non-justiciable legal standard that is necessarily solely within the ambit and discretionary judgment of the president). Congress could not have possibly made its deference to the president more emphatic. Indeed, in the &#8220;travel ban&#8221; U.S. Supreme Court case last term of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf">Trump v. Hawaii</a>, Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46068/hammer-yes-united-states-was-right-deny-entry-bds-josh-hammer">said</a> that § 1182(f) &#8220;exudes deference to the President in every clause.&#8221; Justice Clarence Thomas, furthermore, noted in a Hawaii concurrence that &#8220;Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. &#8230; Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.&#8221;
That inherent constitutional power on the part of the president referenced by Justice Thomas, furthermore, has long had a firm and indelible place throughout Supreme Court case law. In 1892&#8217;s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/142/651">Nishimura Ekiu v. United States</a>, Justice Horace Gray summarized well the plenary power doctrine of the political branches over immigration policy when he opined: &#8220;It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government&#8221; (emphasis added). Furthermore, in 1950&#8217;s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/338/537">Knauff v. Shaughnessy</a>, Justice Sherman Minton observed: &#8220;The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation&#8221; (emphasis added). Justice Antonin Scalia echoed this sentiment in his epic dissent in 2012&#8217;s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182">Arizona v. United States</a>, wherein he properly described &#8220;the power to exclude from the sovereign&#8217;s territory people who have no right to be there&#8221; as &#8220;the defining characteristic of sovereignty.&#8221;
Mr. President, you have abundant power to stop this migrant influx on your own. All it takes is the proper unilateral invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and the issuance of a far-reaching proclamation pursuant thereto. You should not waste a minute&#8217;s more time.

HAMMER: Trump Has The Unilateral Power To Stop This Migrant Influx. He Just Needs To Act.

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Mexico

Southern Border

Trump Administration

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas denied rumors that he is planning to retire soon.
In an interview with financier and philanthropist David Rubenstein for a series of lectures sponsored by the Supreme Court Historical Society, Thomas said he had &#8220;no idea where this stuff comes from,&#8221; reported <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/politics/clarence-thomas-retirement-from-supreme-court.html">The New York Times</a>.&#8203;
&#8220;I really don&#8217;t have a lot of stress,&#8221; Justice Thomas joked. &#8220;I cause stress.&#8221;
Having joined the Court in 1991, Thomas is its longest-serving current member.
During the rest of the interview, Thomas reportedly reflected on his clerks, his frustrations with his fellow justices, and his original goal to become a Roman Catholic priest before dropping out of seminary. 
&#8220;I got angry with the Catholic Church over the issue of race,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I thought that the Church should be the leader of the moral crusade against segregation and discrimination.&#8221;
Thomas also discussed his frustration with identity politics, as a black conservative. 
&#8220;People who will get very upset if someone said all blacks look alike are really comfortable saying all blacks ought to think alike,&#8221; Thomas reportedly said.
&#8220;If you said that blacks should not be allowed to go a library, you&#8217;d be against that,&#8221; he said. &#8220;If you said that blacks couldn&#8217;t read certain books in the library, you would say that&#8217;s wrong.&#8221;
&#8220;But now we are so comfortable saying that blacks can&#8217;t hold some of the ideas in some of the books in the library,&#8221; Thomas added. &#8220;That&#8217;s absurd.&#8221;
Last week, Thomas warned about abortion being used as a tool for racists and eugenicists.
On the subject of a feisty Thomas concurrence in the Court&#8217;s case about an Indiana law which restricts abortion and requires aborted babies to be either cremated or buried, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47755/justice-clarence-thomas-abortion-could-become-tool-emily-zanotti">reported</a>:&#8203;
<blockquote>
Thomas agreed with the Court&#8217;s 7-2 ruling that Indiana was free to require medical facilities to provide a dignified burial or cremation for children aborted under their watch, but dissented from the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision not to rule on the part of the Indiana law that banned abortions done on the basis of gender, race, or disability.
Thomas cautioned that if the Court side-stepped the issue permanently, it could open the door for abortion to be used as a tool of racists and eugenicists, in line with the wishes of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and other early, prominent abortion activists.
Thomas agreed that &#8220;because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression,&#8221; the Court was smart to pass on ruling on the Indiana law, <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445744-thomas-cites-eugenics-says-supreme-court-will-have-to-address?__twitter_impression=true">The Hill reports</a>, but the Court can&#8217;t ignore the issue forever.&#8203;
&#8220;Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana&#8217;s,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.&#8221;
&#8220;Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope,&#8221; he added.
The Indiana law is targeted largely at preventing the selective abortion of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome, but it is based on model law that could move forward in more than just a single state.
</blockquote>

Clarence Thomas Mocks Retirement Rumors: ‘I Don’t Have A Lot Of Stress, I Cause Stress.’

Catholicism

Indiana

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a stinging concurrence Tuesday, in the case of a comprehensive Indiana law greatly restricting the reasons a woman can obtain an abortion and requiring that all aborted babies be either cremated or buried.
Thomas agreed with the Court&#8217;s 7-2 ruling that Indiana was free to require medical facilities to provide a dignified burial or cremation for children aborted under their watch, but dissented from the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision not to rule on the part of the Indiana law that banned abortions done on the basis of gender, race, or disability.
Thomas cautioned that if the Court side-stepped the issue permanently, it could open the door for abortion to be used as a tool of racists and eugenicists, in line with the wishes of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and other early, prominent abortion activists.
Thomas agreed that &#8220;because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression,&#8221; the Court was smart to pass on ruling on the Indiana law, <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445744-thomas-cites-eugenics-says-supreme-court-will-have-to-address?__twitter_impression=true">The Hill reports</a>, but the Court can&#8217;t ignore the issue forever.
&#8220;Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana&#8217;s,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.&#8221;
&#8220;Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope,&#8221; he added.
The Indiana law is targeted largely at preventing the selective abortion of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome, but it is based on model law that could move forward in more than just a single state.
&#8220;Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus&#8217;s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability,&#8221; the law reads.
Babies diagnosed with Down syndrome already face a staggering 60% &#8211; 80% abortion rate, based on a study from Planned Parenthood&#8217;s former statistics arm, the Guttmacher Institute. In some European countries, Down syndrome has been all but &#8220;eradicated,&#8221; not through cures, but through selective abortion.
Unborn girls are also at risk of sex-selective abortion. In countries like China and India, early gender detection has led to the widespread practice of aborting female fetuses, leaving both countries with heavily lopsided demographics. The <a href="https://www.unfpa.org/gender-biased-sex-selection">UNFPA believes that as many as 160 million girls</a> are &#8220;missing&#8221; because of sex-selective abortion and population control programs abroad.
Thomas referenced genetic screening in his concurrence, noting that a baby&#8217;s gender can be determined by an elective blood test given between 7 and 10 weeks, and that disabilities like Down syndrome can be detected before the end of the first trimester. Pairing these tools with unfettered abortion access paves the way for &#8220;modern-day eugenics,&#8221; Thomas says, and states should have the right to protect unborn children from such abject discrimination.
&#8220;So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination,&#8221; Thomas wrote.
Such practices aren&#8217;t foreign even to the nation&#8217;s foremost abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. As <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/28/justice-clarence-thomas-blasts-abortion-tool-racist-eugenicists/">The Federalist points out</a>, Margaret Sanger, the group&#8217;s founder, was an avid fan of eugenics &#8212; and particularly birth control and abortion programs that directly affected minority communities.
Such discrimination runs counter to America&#8217;s constitutional guarantees of civil rights, Thomas said.
&#8220;Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.&#8221;

Justice Clarence Thomas: Abortion Could Become A Tool Of Racists, Eugenicists

Planned Parenthood

In 2016, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence <a href="https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/09/supreme-court-weighs-indiana-law-requiring-fetal-burial-after-miscarriages/">signed into law</a> an omnibus pro-life bill that had two particularly noteworthy provisions. First, the law required that unborn children who die via miscarriage or abortion be either cremated or buried &#8212; and not incinerated along with other medical byproducts. Second, as <a href="https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/09/supreme-court-weighs-indiana-law-requiring-fetal-burial-after-miscarriages/">described</a> by Rewire News, the Indiana law banned &#8220;someone from obtaining a pre-viability abortion if [the] decision [to abort] is based on the race or sex of the fetus or concerns that the fetus has a diagnosis or &#8216;potential diagnosis&#8217; of Down syndrome or &#8216;any other disability.'&#8221;
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over Indiana, <a href="https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180419/news/304199802/">upheld the ruling of a lower district court judge</a> that halted enforcement of the provisions for alleged unconstitutionality. Notably, the Seventh Circuit panel included a <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2018/D04-19/C:17-3163:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2142678:S:0">stinging rebuke</a> from a dissenting Judge Daniel Manion, who objected that the Indiana law&#8217;s fetal remains provision ought to be easily upheld under federal courts&#8217; highly deferential &#8220;rational basis&#8221; standard of review. &#8220;Under traditional rational basis review, if state action doesn&#8217;t infringe upon a fundamental right or affect a protected class, we will uphold it so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest,&#8221; Manion wrote. &#8220;The fetal remains provision easily satisfies that extremely deferential standard.&#8221;
On Tuesday, in an unsigned Per Curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court vindicated Judge Manion and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052819zor_2dq3.pdf">reinstated</a> Indiana&#8217;s fetal remains disposal law. Notably, seven justices of the Court signed onto the reinstatement &#8212; with only far-left Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor refusing to join.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Note that Justice Kagan (and Breyer) apparently join the Court in upholding the IN fetal remains law. 7-2 (Ginsburg and Sotomayor). <a href="https://t.co/1RPR8TNHgS">https://t.co/1RPR8TNHgS</a>
&#8212; Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaseyMattox_/status/1133372787966582786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Per Curiam majority clarified that the fetal remains disposal law did not implicate the &#8220;undue burden&#8221; constitutional standard fabricated in the Court&#8217;s landmark 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, but instead relied solely on &#8220;rational basis&#8221; review.
The Court also upheld the Seventh Circuit&#8217;s invalidation of Indiana&#8217;s race/sex/&#8221;abnormality&#8221;-selective abortion ban &#8212; a ban that the Seventh Circuit&#8217;s prominent Judge Frank Easterbook previously <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2018/D06-25/C:17-3163:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:npDp:N:2176287:S:0">described</a> as a &#8220;eugenics statute.&#8221; As Easterbrook powerfully <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2018/D06-25/C:17-3163:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:npDp:N:2176287:S:0">opined</a> last June in dissenting from the Seventh Circuit&#8217;s decision not to rehear the case in front of the full court, &#8220;None of the [Supreme] Court&#8217;s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.&#8221;
Today, in a lengthy concurrence that will surely be discussed in abortion litigation for years to come, originalist stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas took pains to outline the history of the 20th-century eugenics movement in America and to connect it to the Indiana law at issue. Here were some <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052819zor_2dq3.pdf">highlights</a>:
<blockquote>
The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control &#8220;opens the way to the eugenist.&#8221; &#8230;
Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent &#8220;unfit&#8221; people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place. Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates &#8212; including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher &#8212; endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons. Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion &#8230;
Abortion advocates were sometimes candid about abortion&#8217;s eugenic possibilities. In 1959, for example, Guttmacher explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion. &#8230;
Judge Easterbrook was correct. Whatever else might be said about Casey, it did not decide whether the Constitution requires States to allow eugenic abortions. &#8230;
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.
</blockquote>

Pro-Life Victory: SCOTUS Reinstates Indiana’s Fetal Remains Disposal Law

Fetus

Mike Pence

Dr. Jill Biden, wife of former vice president-turned-2020 presidential candiate Joe Biden, wants the Democrats to &#8220;move on&#8221; from her husband&#8217;s role in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas&#8217; 1991 confirmation hearing, and his handling of sexual harassment claims made against Thomas by law professor Anita Hill.
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/720696969/jill-biden-says-it-s-time-to-move-on-from-anita-hill-controversy">In an interview with NPR</a>, Dr. Biden expressed a view very much at odds with mainstream Democrats, who are more concerned now than ever about sexual mores and ethics, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism from her husband, who Democrats now say did not do enough to ensure Hill was heard and respected.
&#8220;I watched the hearings like most other Americans, and so I mean Joe said, as I did, we believed Anita Hill. He voted against Clarence Thomas,&#8221; Dr. Biden told NPR host Rachel Martin. &#8220;And as he has said, I mean he&#8217;s called Anita Hill, they&#8217;ve talked, they&#8217;ve spoken, and he said, you know, he feels badly. He apologized for the way the hearings were run. And so now it&#8217;s kind of &#8212; it&#8217;s time to move on.&#8221;
Martin followed up by asking Dr. Biden why her husband waited until right before he launched a presidential campaign to call Hill and apologize &#8212; something Joe Biden admitted to on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;The View.&#8221;
&#8220;Well, I guess it was just not the right time maybe,&#8221; Dr. Biden replied. &#8220;So, he wanted to call her. I think he didn&#8217;t know whether she would take his call, and he was so happy that he she did take his call, and they spoke. And I think he was, you know, I think they came to an agreement.&#8221;
Joe Biden called Anita Hill sometime in early April as he was preparing his entry into the 2020 Democratic primary. Biden claims that he &#8220;expressed regret&#8221; for the way Hill was treated by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill told The New York Times, in response, that she &#8220;declined to characterize his words to her as an apology&#8221; and urged female voters not to support Biden&#8217;s run.
Hill&#8217;s relationship with Joe Biden is likely to come up again and again across his campaign, and Biden clearly plans to be asked why he, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, didn&#8217;t stop Republican members from asking Hill personal questions and probing into why Hill didn&#8217;t report Thomas&#8217; &#8220;suggestive&#8221; and &#8220;harassing&#8221; behavior to human resources at the time, and whether Hill had fabricated her story from whole cloth after being turned down by Thomas for a romantic relationship.
But Biden isn&#8217;t just under fire for what Republicans did; Democrats seem to believe that Biden abrogated his duty to protect Hill when he joined in questioning her. When Biden appeared on The View, host Joy Behar prodded him to apologize to Hill, to which Biden responded, &#8220;If you go back and look at what I said and didn&#8217;t say, I don&#8217;t think I treated her badly.&#8221;
Dr. Jill Biden also brushed aside questions of Biden&#8217;s personal behavior and whether his habit of being overly &#8220;affectionate&#8221; towards women should factor in to an assessment of his fitness to hold office.
&#8220;He connects with people. And I think that&#8217;s one of his strengths. And he heard [Lucy Flores] loud and clear, and he said he would take responsibility and he would you know honor people&#8217;s space,&#8221; she said, adding that Joe Biden&#8217;s whole family is strangely affectionate. &#8220;And now these are different times. Joe realizes these are different times. And believe me &#8212; he&#8217;s very conscious of, you know, how he interacts with men and women today.&#8221;
The same critics aren&#8217;t likely to be happy with Dr. Jill Biden telling them to &#8220;move on,&#8221; especially those who would prefer Biden lose the 2020 primary to someone further left.

Dr. Jill Biden: Perhaps It&#8217;s &#8216;Time To Move On&#8217; From The Anita Hill Controversy

Jill Biden

Joe Biden

Sexual Harassment

The first segment of former Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s 2020 presidential campaign has escalated into an apology tour rather quickly. Now, having ducked the #MeToo allegations of inappropriate touching, he is now courting feminists by taking full responsibility for the alleged injustice that happened upon Anita Hill at the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Appearing on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;Good Morning America&#8221; alongside his wife, Jill, Joe Biden said that he believed Anita Hill&#8217;s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas &#8220;from the very beginning&#8221; but ultimately failed to give her justice.
&#8220;I was chairman of the committee,&#8221; Biden said, as reported by <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-anita-hill-hearing_n_5cc82dcbe4b02791823ecdf8">HuffPost</a>. &#8220;I believed her from the very beginning. But I was chairman. She did not get a fair hearing. She did not get treated well. That&#8217;s my responsibility. As the committee chairman, I take responsibility that she did not get treated well. I take responsibility for that.&#8221;
Back in 1991, on the eve of Clarence Thomas&#8217; confirmation to the Supreme Court, Anita Hill alleged he had sexually harassed her several times while under his employment in the 1980s. Her credibility did not survive scrutiny when evidence revealed she followed him from job to job, along with phone records showing she had called him multiple times. Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Clarence Thomas denied all accusations against him and famously referred to them as a &#8220;high-tech lynching.&#8221; In the end, Clarence Thomas went on to become the second black man to serve on the Supreme Court. Feminists have criticized Joe Biden for not allowing other women to testify in Hill&#8217;s favor.
According to The New York Times, the former vice president <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46441/biden-calls-anita-hill-express-his-regret-nyt-it-james-barrett">called Anita Hill several weeks ago</a> to apologize for her 1991 treatment. The apology apparently did not go over well.
&#8220;In a lengthy telephone interview on Wednesday, [Hill] declined to characterize Mr. Biden&#8217;s words to her as an apology and said she was not convinced that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings &#8212; and for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence,&#8221; the Times reports.
&#8220;I cannot be satisfied by simply saying, &#8216;I&#8217;m sorry for what happened to you,'&#8221; Hill told the Times. &#8220;I will be satisfied when I know there is real change and real accountability and real purpose.&#8221;
Though Hill said that Biden&#8217;s actions in 1991 should not disqualify him for the 2020 ticket, she demanded that he apologize to the other women who were not allowed to testify at the time.
&#8220;The focus on apology to me is one thing,&#8221; she said to The New York Times. &#8220;But he needs to give an apology to the other women and to the American public because we know now how deeply disappointed Americans around the country were about what they saw. And not just women. There are women and men now who have just really lost confidence in our government to respond to the problem of gender violence.&#8221;
In the same interview on &#8220;Good Morning America,&#8221; Biden cited his record of staunch feminism to fend off attacks on how Anita Hill got treated. When asked if he would pledge to have a female running mate, he said he will have to wait and see. &#8220;It would be a government that would represent everyone,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Who that would be if I were fortunate enough to win, I haven&#8217;t made that decision.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
EXCLUSIVE: Former VP <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> tells <a href="https://twitter.com/RobinRoberts?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RobinRoberts</a> he takes responsibility for Anita Hill&#8217;s treatment during Clarence Thomas&#8217;s confirmation hearing. <a href="https://t.co/ensTb4AANb">https://t.co/ensTb4AANb</a> <a href="https://t.co/dULbojA99i">pic.twitter.com/dULbojA99i</a>
&#8212; Good Morning America (@GMA) <a href="https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1123183697874698240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: Biden Takes ‘Responsibility’ For Anita Hill Not Being ‘Treated Well’

U.S. Senate

In an announcement that will elicit gigantic sighs of relief from conservatives across the nation, last weekend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told attendees at a Pepperdine University School of Law dinner that he has no intention of retiring.
As <a href="https://freebeacon.com/issues/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-squashes-retirement-rumors/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> reports, Thomas was asked which person he would want to speak at his retirement party 20 years from now. Thomas answered bluntly, &#8220;I&#8217;m not retiring.&#8221; As <a href="https://www.law360.com/california/articles/1142647/thomas-rejects-retirement-says-faith-enhances-his-oath">Law360.com</a> noted, the moderator, who was Professor James Allan Gash, Pepperdine&#8217;s incoming president, according to <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/clarence-thomas-retirement/">The Daily Caller</a>, pressed Thomas, altering the date of the party to 30 years from now, prompting Thomas, who will be 71 in June, to laugh and respond, &#8220;Nope.&#8221;
Rumors of Thomas&#8217; retirement have been rife in recent months; CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin speculated in The New Yorker magazine in February:
<blockquote>
The more complex drama involves Clarence Thomas, who is seventy years old and the longest-tenured Associate Justice on the Court. With fifty-three Republicans now in the Senate (and no filibusters allowed on Supreme Court nominations), President Trump would have a free hand in choosing a dream candidate for his conservative base if Thomas were to retire this year. The summer of 2019 would seem an ideal time to add a third younger conservative to the Court (along with Neil Gorsuch, who is fifty-one, and Brett Kavanaugh, who is fifty-four). It&#8217;s true that Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, would likely violate his Merrick Garland rule and try to push through a nominee in 2020, an election year, but 2019 would be much easier to navigate. So, many conservatives are asking, why shouldn&#8217;t Thomas leave now?
</blockquote>
Nine days later, CNN followed up with a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court/index.html">article </a>titled, &#8220;Is Clarence Thomas headed out or just getting started?&#8221; It huffed, &#8220;[Thomas&#8217;s remarks] even reignited a whispering campaign among progressives that the 70-year-old justice is preparing to retire. The thinking goes that he had launched the opinion&#8212;joined by no other justice&#8212;as a kind of last salvo as he prepared to relinquish his seat to a younger Trump nominee.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/ng-interactive/2018/jul/09/supreme-court-justice-trump-third-pick-possible">The Guardian</a> wrote last summer:
<blockquote>
Breyer and Ginsburg are both Democrat-nominated judges but there&#8217;s a small chance that we could see a retirement on the Republican-nominated side. Clarence Thomas, while relatively young at 70, has already served for 26 years, just one less than the average and four less than the recent retiree Kennedy. So it&#8217;s entirely reasonable that Thomas believes he&#8217;s served his time. If he decided this on Trump&#8217;s watch, the Republicans, while they wouldn&#8217;t gain a seat on the conservative side, would be able to lock another seat down with a younger judge.
</blockquote>
As far back as 2016, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wife-of-clarence-thomas-dismisses-justices-retirement-talk-as-bogus">The Washington Examiner</a> wrote, &#8220;Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers. Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.&#8221;
Thomas&#8217; wife Ginni<a href="https://www.facebook.com/GinniLThomas/photos/a.649025938463595.1073741828.645562822143240/1217081578324692/?type=3&amp;theater"> responded</a>, &#8220;For all those who are contacting me about the possibility of my husband retiring, I say &#8212; unsubscribe from those false news sources and carry on with your busy lives. IT. IS. BOGUS!&#8221;

GREAT: Clarence Thomas: I&#8217;m Not Retiring

Speaking at the Biden Courage Awards in New York City, former Vice President Joe Biden harshly criticized &#8220;white man&#8217;s culture&#8221; as he recalled what he described as the refusal of white senators to believe Anita Hill&#8217;s vicious character assassination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during the hearings to confirm Thomas to the Supreme Court. Predictably, he also used the hearings last fall for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh as he made his attack.
Biden began:
<blockquote>
28 years ago I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing, the first of its kind, the Clarence Thomas hearing, the appointment of a lifetime appointed to the Supreme Court, and a brave lawyer, a really notable woman, Anita Hill, professor, showed the courage of a lifetime talking about her experience being harassed by Clarence Thomas. We knew a lot less about the extent of harassment back then, over 30 years ago. But she paid a terrible price. She was abused through the hearing. She was taken advantage of. Her reputation was attacked.
</blockquote>
He moaned, &#8220;I wish I could have done something. I opposed Clarence Thomas nomination. I voted against him. But I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the committee faced.&#8221;
Biden then blamed the white senators on the Judiciary committee for their response to Hill, whose testimony has been thoroughly debunked <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/jill-abramson-smears-justice-thomas-again-part-2-anita-hill/">here</a>:
<blockquote>
They were a bunch of white guys. No, I mean it sincerely, a bunch of white guys hearing, hearing this testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. So when Anita Hill, when Anita Hill came to testify, she faced a committee that didn&#8217;t fully understand what the hell it was all about. To this day I regret I couldn&#8217;t come up with a way to get a kind of hearing she deserved, given the courage she showed by reaching out to us. The hearing she deserved was a hearing where she was respected, where the tone and the questioning was not hostile and insulting, where the fact that she stepped forward was recognized as an act of courage in and of itself. Because let&#8217;s face it, back in 1991 it took a lot of courage to take on a man who was so much a part of the establishment and the power structure.
</blockquote>
Biden then cited the Kavanaugh hearings as another example of a woman supposedly being ignored when she claimed sexual harassment.
He later cited English common law going back to the 1300s as a reason for senators allegedly ignoring women&#8217;s complaints:
<blockquote>
You all know what the phrase rule of thumb means? Where it&#8217;s derived from? In English common law, not codification or common law, back in the late 1300s, so many women were dying at the hands of her husbands because they were chattel, just like the cattle or the sheep, that the Court of Common Law decided they had to do something about the extent of the deaths. So, you know what they said? No man has a right to chastise his woman with a rod thicker than the circumference of his thumb. This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man&#8217;s culture. That&#8217;s got to change it&#8217;s got to change.
</blockquote>
Biden should be the last one to speak of morality when it comes to judicial appointments; his history includes his nefarious attack on the leading conservative jurist of his day, Judge Robert Bork, when Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan. As Bork wrote in his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Tempting-America-Political-Seduction-Law/dp/0029037611/ref=sr_1_1?crid=32JDFDB9XJ1OG&amp;keywords=the+tempting+of+america&amp;qid=1553705670&amp;s=gateway&amp;sprefix=The+tempting+of+%2Caps%2C193&amp;sr=8-1">classic book</a> &#8220;The Tempting of America&#8221;:
<blockquote>
The Biden Report, issued on September 2, stated that &#8220;Judge Bork&#8217;s extensive record shows that he has opposed virtually every major civil rights advance on which he has taken a position. . . . . &#8221; The Report also converted my remarks some sixteen years earlier about advocacy of law violation into opposition to civil rights &#8230; Here, as elsewhere, the Biden report so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.
</blockquote>
Video below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FjKVvIBNAX0" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Biden Rips &#8216;White Man&#8217;s Culture&#8217; For Mistreatment Of Women

Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991 that FBI reports were useless because the &#8220;FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period.&#8221;
The clip has resurfaced as Senate Democrats are desperately trying to delay the confirmation vote for current Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after allegations of sexual misconduct were recently made from over 30 years ago &#8212; without evidence or corroborating witnesses.
&#8220;The reason why I have worked so hard to keep FBI reports totally secret is because they have little or no probative weight, because they are hearsay,&#8221; Biden said. &#8220;The FBI does their interviews by walking up to person A and saying will you speak to us, and the guarantee is anonymity. That is what the FBI tells the person, and the FBI speaks to the person. Now, for us to summarily go back and say, as a matter of policy, that we are going to break the commitment the Federal Government makes to an individual, in order to get that individual to cooperate in an investigation, is disastrous.&#8221;
&#8220;And the last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn&#8217;t understand anything,&#8221; Biden later said. &#8220;FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period, period. So, Judge, there is no reason why you should know this. The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report, you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say he said, she said, and they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions. They do not make, as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations.&#8221;
&#8203;WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1Vf8z9SQHu8" width="560"></iframe></div>

Here&#8217;s What Biden Thought About Using An &#8216;FBI Report&#8217; To Clear Clarence Thomas

Actress Mia Farrow, mother of Ronan Farrow &#8212; the journalist who published the flimsy second allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh &#8212; is now calling on Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. 
Taking to Twitter on Sunday night, Mia Farrow said that the Kavanaugh situation proves that Justice Clarence Thomas should not sit on the Supreme Court because he escaped allegations several years ago. 
&#8220;And another thing is painfully clear all over again Clarence Thomas has no business on the Supreme Court. He should resign,&#8221; Mia Farrow wrote on Twitter just hours before her son published the second accusation of sexual assault. 
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
And another thing is painfully clear all over again Clarence Thomas has no business on the Supreme Court. He should resign.
&#8212; Mia Farrow (@MiaFarrow) <a href="https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/1043898061574074368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Farrow was, of course, referencing the #MeToo-style allegations made against Thomas in 1991 by Anita Hill, who claimed he sexually harassed her while she was under his employment in the 1980&#8217;s. Hill&#8217;s story, however, did not hold up to scrutiny; evidence revealed she followed him from job to job along with phone records showing she had called him multiple times. Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Clarence Thomas denied all accusations against him and referred to them as a &#8220;high-tech lynching.&#8221; In the end, Clarence Thomas went on to become the second black man to serve on the Supreme Court.
As the accusations against Kavanaugh crumbled last week, Anita Hill made several media appearances demanding that the Senate postpone the vote on Kavanaugh.

Ronan Farrow’s Mom Mia Farrow: Clarence Thomas Should Resign

Ronan Farrow

Anita Hill, perennially painted as the &#8220;Rosa Parks of sexual harassment&#8221; by the national press, is back on the scene as the media push the unproven teenage-groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. The New York Times asked her to write an op-ed on how we can get these next Kavanaugh hearings &#8220;right.&#8221; The Boston Globe put Hill on the front page, lecturing about a better protocol in Congress for sexual harassment claims.
Asking Anita Hill how to get a fairer congressional hearing is like asking Janet Cooke how to get better newspaper reporting. If you&#8217;re too young for the analogy, Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for selling a fraudulent story in The Washington Post in 1980 about Jimmy, an imaginary 8-year-old heroin addict who &#8220;lives for a fix.&#8221;
On ABC, George Stephanopoulos sympathetically asked if the prospect of hearings for Kavanaugh&#8217;s accuser Christine Blasey Ford was meant as an intimidation tactic. Yes, that&#8217;s right &#8212; the same Stephanopoulos responsible for running &#8220;bimbos&#8221; into the political ditch for Bill Clinton.
Donald Trump could tweet it: Anita Hill&#8217;s 1991 accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas were &#8220;fake news.&#8221; The American people sided with Thomas. Even The Washington Post editorial board sided with Thomas. Her stories were never proven. But to this day, the media treat her as if her accusations were precious jewels of truth.
Even after her million-dollar book deal &#8212; after she pledged she would not cash in on her story &#8212; she is still portrayed as the victim, not the victimizer. Even after she dismissed President Clinton&#8217;s accusers in 1998 as unworthy in The New York Times and on &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; &#8212; and that includes an alleged rape victim &#8212; she&#8217;s still the poster girl for &#8220;Believe Women.&#8221; Even after she donated $1,000 to ultraliberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2012, she&#8217;s still somehow nonpartisan, not a liberal Democrat.
News reports on Kavanaugh have routinely, shamelessly jumped from 1991 right to 2018, and skipped over the Clinton years. These Anita-boosting journalists still expected everyone to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, because unlike Trump, she somehow had a sterling record on sexual harassment and assault. Senate Democrats, especially the women righteously elected after the Hill-Thomas hearings to be the alleged guardians of women&#8217;s rights, were never there for Bill Clinton&#8217;s accusers. They were treated like they never existed, or as trailer-park women selling tabloid trash. Only St. Anita was worthy, and she got the standing ovations and the front-page tributes.
If you want to hear echoes of 1991 in the character assassination of Kavanaugh, try this one. Anita Hill gave the Senate the names of two supposedly corroborating witnesses who would back her sleazy tales of Thomas &#8212; Nancy Fitch and Allyson Duncan. Both disputed Hill&#8217;s allegations. Fitch actually testified for Thomas.
It&#8217;s happening again. The liberal media are very silent when Ford&#8217;s alleged corroborating witnesses are denying her accusation, siding with Kavanaugh, and suggesting she&#8217;s making it up.
Not one co-worker of both Hill and Thomas at the Department of Education or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission &#8212; and she followed her &#8220;harasser&#8221; from one agency to the other in the Reagan years &#8212; testified on her behalf.
But her feminist fictions have been made into glowing liberal TV movies by Showtime and HBO. The media eagerly forwarded Hill&#8217;s latest statement: &#8220;I have seen firsthand what happens when such a process is weaponized against an accuser, and no one should have to endure that again.&#8221;
To them, the &#8220;truth&#8221; always has a liberal bias. These guardians of &#8220;facts&#8221; cannot imagine that the accusers of Thomas and Kavanaugh have been &#8220;weaponized&#8221; by liberals to spread lies about offenses that never happened. They can&#8217;t say, &#8220;No one should have to endure that again.&#8221; Kavanaugh is having to endure the same punishment as the man we hope he joins on the Supreme Court.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

BOZELL &#038; GRAHAM: Anita Hill, The Janet Cooke Of Sexual Harassment

Then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas faced sexual misconduct allegations while he was going through the Supreme Court confirmation process in 1991 after being nominated to the court by George H. W. Bush.
On October 11, 1991, Thomas gave a statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee after then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) asked him if he had anything to say regarding the allegations.
&#8220;Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her,&#8221; Thomas <a href="https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/clarencethomashightechlynching.htm">began</a>.
&#8220;A second, and I think more important point,&#8221; Thomas continued. &#8220;I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation. How would any member on this committee, any person in this room, or any person in this country, would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?&#8221;
&#8220;The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this.&#8221;
&#8220;This is not a closed room,&#8221; Thomas continued. &#8220;There was an FBI investigation. This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It&#8217;s a national disgrace.&#8221;
&#8220;And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I&#8217;m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you,&#8221; Thomas declared. &#8220;You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. &#8212; U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZURHD5BU1o8" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Here&#8217;s How Clarence Thomas Responded To Allegations Against Him

In a court of law, Americans may be innocent until proven guilty, especially regarding allegations from over three decades ago, but in the court of public opinion, the establishment of guilt has a very low bar to clear.
According to Matthew Dowd, an &#8220;objective&#8221; political analyst with ABC, both Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas are sexual predators based on unsubstantiated allegations from women whose credibility is called into question upon close scrutiny.
Sounding off on Twitter, Dowd said that because the Senate failed to block Clarence Thomas in the early 90&#8217;s after being accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, the Senate should now do the right thing and block Kavanaugh.
&#8220;It was despicable and outrageous what happened to Anita Hill more than 25 years ago, and a sexual predator was given a lifetime seat on the SC,&#8221; Dowd wrote. &#8220;Let&#8217;s hope history doesn&#8217;t repeat itself in 2018.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It was despicable and outrageous what happened to Anita Hill more than 25 years ago, and a sexual predator was given a lifetime seat on the SC. Let&#8217;s hope history doesn&#8217;t repeat itself in 2018.
&#8212; Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/1041757284555214850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexually harassing her while under his employment in the 1980&#8217;s. Her credibility was severely called into question when evidence showed she followed Thomas from job to job and called him on multiple occasions. No other woman has come forward to accuse Clarence Thomas since then.
Also on Monday, Dowd acknowledged that the current accusations against Kavanaugh, in which he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a girl at a pool party 35 years ago, is a &#8220;he said, she said&#8221; situation but conceded that the &#8220;she&#8221; in that scenario should tip the scale. Witness social justice logic at work: &#8220;Enough with the &#8216;he said, she said&#8217; storyline. If this is he said, she said, then let&#8217;s believe the she in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios. Enough is enough.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If your line is this is a &#8220;he said, she said&#8221; situation, and then support kavanaugh, well you are believing the he and not the she. This same line was used in 1991 with justice thomas, and senators who voted for thomas believed the he and not the she.
&#8212; Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/1042039038532898817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

ABC Political Analyst Matthew Dowd: Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh Are Sexual Predators

Sexual Assault

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/13/clarence-thomas-mocks-cory-bookers-spartacus-claim-says-theatrics-hurt-process.html">Speaking</a> on C-Span, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas slammed New Jersey Senator Cory Booker for his theatrical flourish declaring himself Spartacus during the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas asserted, &#8220;Honorable &#8211; if we could use that word about more people who are in public life, people who actually ask the questions at confirmation hearings, instead of &#8216;Spartacus.&#8221;
Booker had boasted that he was defying Senate rules by releasing what he claimed were confidential documents concerning Kavanaugh&#8217;s past, preening, &#8220;This is about the closest I&#8217;ll probably ever have in my life to an &#8216;I am Spartacus&#8217; moment.&#8221; Later <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/35546/total-fraud-booker-claimed-defy-rules-releasing-ryan-saavedra">revelations showed</a> Booker had been given access to the documents before he made his &#8220;Spartacus&#8221; speech. William Burck, a lawyer working for former President George W. Bush told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html">The New York Times</a>, &#8220;We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker&#8217;s staff asked us to. We were surprised to learn about Sen. Booker&#8217;s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.&#8221;
Thomas was speaking to the Federalist Society when he criticized Booker. He added, &#8220;If we could use the word honorable more often, think about the difference it&#8217;ll make. Then, you&#8217;ll have a legacy. We will have left the country in better shape, morally, structurally than we found it. But as long as we&#8217;re looking at our interests, or scoring points, or looking cute, or being on TV, or the greenhouse effect, or what editorials we&#8217;re getting, especially the legal system, how do we maintain it? If you can&#8217;t debate hard issues honestly, with honor, with integrity, how do we keep a civil society?&#8221;
Thomas, the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, knows how it feels to be attacked the way leftists have attacked Kavanaugh; after he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush, Anita Hill, a law professor who had worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accused Thomas of sexual harassment.
Thomas later said:
<blockquote>
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It&#8217;s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
</blockquote>
Ken Foskett, an investigative reporter for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, wrote in &#8220;Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas,&#8221; &#8220;Bullying a woman simply wasn&#8217;t in Thomas&#8217;s nature and ran contrary to how he conducted himself around others in a professional environment.&#8221;
Video below:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
From last week, Justice Clarence Thomas: &#8220;Honorable &#8211; if we could use that word about more people who are in public life, people who actually ask the questions at confirmation hearings, instead of &#8216;Spartacus&#8217;&#8230;&#8221;
Watch full <a href="https://twitter.com/FedSoc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FedSoc</a> conversation &#8211; 7pm ET on C-SPAN2 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/PNgIofgvJC">pic.twitter.com/PNgIofgvJC</a>
&#8212; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1039969047352369152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: SCOTUS&#8217; Clarence Thomas Slams Cory Booker&#8217;s &#8216;Spartacus&#8217; Moment

Cory Booker

A Massachusets Democrat running for Congress has vowed to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas, the second black man in history to serve on the Supreme Court, if she is elected.
State Sen. Barbara L&#8217;Italien will be running for Congress this coming midterm and has made #MeToo one of her corner platforms by vowing to hold powerful men accused of sexual misconduct accountable. According to <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/29/barbara-litalien-vows-impeach-clarence-thomas-if-e/?utm_source=Boomtrain&amp;utm_medium=manual&amp;utm_campaign=20180326&amp;utm_term=newsalert&amp;utm_content=newsalert&amp;bt_ee=JnLfGS30ybXB9RgUoJUYpJBBBuT8Y/Rvgu40eWfZzjh8OTBmvEedM5AOD3k0i54s&amp;bt_ts=1535588115982">The Washington Times</a>, L&#8217;Italien claims that Clarence Thomas is guilty of both sexual harassment and perjury based on the testimony of Anita Hill, who accused the justice during his confirmation hearings of harassing her while in his employment.
&#8220;There is an elephant in the room for Congress in the #MeToo era,&#8221; L&#8217;Italien said. &#8220;Our leaders have to start talking about it. Two of the most powerful men in the country have been credibly accused of sexual crimes and gotten away with it.&#8221;
Despite the allegations against Thomas, Anita Hill&#8217;s testimony was deemed not credible by several women who worked under him. Evidence also showed that Anita Hill contacted him several times following her employment.
L&#8217;Italien spokesman Joe Katz <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/29/barbara-litalien-clarence-thomas-impeachment-801680" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told</a> Politico that she is the first congressional candidate to call for <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/clarence-thomas/">Justice Thomas</a>&#8216; impeachment. She bases this on the fact that the Supreme Court can strike down laws regulating sexual harassment.
&#8220;Laws cracking down on sexual assault have to be signed by a president who multiple women say assaulted them,&#8221; said L&#8217;Italien. &#8220;Regulations to stop sexual harassment can be struck down by a Supreme Court justice who lied under oath to counter allegations of sexual harassment. Why would victims think a government like that is looking out for them?&#8221;
Leftists have continually marginalized Justice Thomas&#8217; participation on the Supreme Court. Being the second black man in history to serve on it, he has been denigrated at every turn for his conservative leanings. While Ruth Bader Ginsburg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/33140/ruth-bader-ginsburg-biopic-trailer-here-yawn-paul-bois">gets glowing biopics</a> by major Hollywood studios, Clarence Thomas, a man who survived racism to become an influential public figure, has had the Anita Hill controversy thrown at his legacy at every turn. He was also snubbed by the Smithsonian African American History Museum for up to a year until significant backlash forced administrators into <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/clarence-thomas-spot-african-american-museum/">giving him a mention</a>.

What? Dem Running For Congress Vows To Impeach Clarence Thomas

Four members of the legal team challenging Harvard&#8217;s Admissions Policy are former clerks of Justice Clarence Thomas, the second African-American judge appointed to the Supreme Court, who is also considered a member of the Conservative wing.
According to the <a href="https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/04/11/four-former-clarence-thomas-clerks-form-legal-team-to-challenge-harvards-admissions-policy/">National Law Journal</a>, William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge, partners at Consovoy McCarthy Park, are forming the legal team with Adam Mortara and John Hughes, both partners at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &amp; Scott in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which challenges the school&#8217;s affirmative action policies. 
Consovoy and Strawbridge clerked for Thomas in 2008 and 2009. Hughes clerked for the Justice from 2005 to 2006 and Mortara clerked for Thomas in 2002 and 2003.
The case, which is set to go to trial October 15, is alleging that Harvard is active in racially discriminatory admissions policy. The plaintiff is arguing that the Ivy League school&#8217;s practices are violating the rights of Asian-American students in favor of African-American and other applicants.
Harvard, which is represented by a team from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, is denying any wrongdoing. 
Justice Thomas has always been vocal about his opposition to affirmative action. He wrote the dissenting <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/case.html">opinion</a> for Grutter v. Bollinger, where the majority ruled that colleges could use the practice for admissions, saying, &#8220;I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.&#8221;
He continued, &#8220;A university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant exemptions to favored races.&#8221; 
He also wrote, &#8220;Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy.&#8221;
In the 2013 case <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf">Fisher v. University Of Texas At Austin</a>, he argued that affirmative action is akin to segregation: &#8220;While the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.&#8221;

The Legal Team Challenging Harvard’s Admissions Policy Comprises Four Former Clarence Thomas Clerks

Conservatism

Harvard

Race

Racism

Of all the desperate and futile attempts at revisionist history, few are as careless as the attempt to destroy the reputation of one of the finest Supreme Court justices this country has ever produced. Now comes another volley. New York magazine has assembled &#8220;The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas.&#8221; The author is longtime anti-Thomas journalist Jill Abramson. For more than 4,000 words, Abramson labors to relitigate Thomas accuser Anita Hill&#8217;s dramatic loss in the court of public opinion. According to one poll at the time, 58 percent believed Thomas; only 24 percent believed Hill.
Again the argument falls on its face.
Justice Thomas has been a distinguished member of the Supreme Court for more than 26 years now. In the years since, Abramson has assembled &#8230; well, nothing. Meanwhile, the case against Hill&#8217;s unproven charges has grown only stronger, and Abramson&#8217;s record of objectivity &#8212; if there ever was one &#8212; is evermore tattered. Liberals like her think you should impeach someone for allegedly lying under oath &#8212; but not if the person&#8217;s name is Bill Clinton &#8212; and then lean heavily on &#8220;alleged&#8221; for protection.
Abramson&#8217;s newest attraction is attorney Moira Smith, who claims she was groped by Thomas at a 1999 dinner party. Her accusation, delivered in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign, flopped so badly that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN never touched it.
The rationale for attacking Thomas all over again was the Harvey Weinstein expose. But just since then, Abramson has managed to hurt her own cause again. She has no credibility in this discussion. Indeed, she&#8217;s on the wrong side of it. In October, the Washington Post reported that as executive editor of The New York Times and deputy to Michael Oreskes, she did nothing to stop Oreskes from allegedly sexually harassing a female news aide in the Washington bureau.
&#8220;If I had to do it again, I would have told him to knock it off,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I think I should have raised this with (the Times&#8217; human resources department). &#8230; Maybe confronting him would have somehow stopped him from doing it to another woman.&#8221;
In November, she wrote an editorial for the leftist British newspaper The Guardian that explicitly argued that feminist politicians shouldn&#8217;t be ruined by sexual-harassment allegations. It said: &#8220;Casting out Al Franken, who has been a passionate, zealous defender of women&#8217;s rights in a Senate grown ever more hostile to them, could remove an important weapon in the embattled Democratic arsenal.
&#8220;A reassessment of Bill Clinton&#8217;s behavior era could have the same counter-productive effect.&#8221;
That passage underlines that Abramson isn&#8217;t really interested in stopping sexual harassment. She&#8217;s interested in using sexual harassment against opponents of &#8220;women&#8217;s rights,&#8221; especially abortion on demand.
In fact, Abramson&#8217;s tolerance for former President Clinton&#8217;s sexual misconduct is this dramatic: A Nexis search of The New York Times for the terms &#8220;Jill Abramson&#8221; and &#8220;Juanita Broaddrick&#8221; brings up zero stories. When she finally acknowledged Broaddrick&#8217;s existence in October 2016, she dismissed Broaddrick (and other Clinton accusers Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey) as part of a &#8220;Soviet show trial&#8221; before the second presidential debate.
Abramson&#8217;s &#8220;new&#8221; case against Thomas is so unconvincing that the liberal media passed right over it. Oh, she still has a few die-hard friends on the left. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan touted the New York magazine piece and lauded Abramson as a &#8220;badass&#8221; with &#8220;unparalleled expertise on the subject.&#8221; They think alike. Last October, Sullivan also trashed Broaddrick &amp; Co. as &#8220;a twisted version of &#8216;The Last Supper.'&#8221;
Clarence Thomas has been recognized as a forceful legal mind on the Supreme Court, and he has staunchly argued against liberal barbarism like partial-birth abortion. It&#8217;s obvious why liberal journalists with no real core principles on sexual harassment wished they had prevented his confirmation, and why Americans would have been denied an impressive justice. 
Character assassination means never having to say you&#8217;re sorry.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

BOZELL &#038; GRAHAM: Desperately Hating Clarence Thomas

Bill Clinton

On Tuesday, Justice Clarence Thomas <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022018zor_fd9g.pdf#page=34">issued a blistering rebuke</a> to his Supreme Court colleagues, as well as to lower courts that have refused to treat the Second Amendment with the same level of honor as other rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Thomas wrote a dissent against his Supreme Court colleagues refusing to take up the case of California&#8217;s 10-day waiting period for buying a gun. Under California law, gun buyers &#8212; even those who already own guns &#8212; must wait ten days before picking up their guns from the store. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether the background checks have already been run; purchasers must wait. The idea is that these potential buyers will have second thoughts about owning a gun, and decide not to pick up the gun after all.
The state of California provided little or no evidence to show that such cooling-off periods impact in any way either suicide rates or crime rates, particularly as applied to those who already have gun licenses and concealed carry permits. That didn&#8217;t stop the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from upholding the law on the basis that the purchaser &#8220;may want to purchase a larger capacity weapon that will do more damage when fired into a crowd.&#8221; That contention was entirely speculative, of course.
But this is the lowest possible standard for constitutional review. As Thomas points out, the Heller case says Courts may not &#8220;decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.&#8221; The Court explicitly shot down &#8220;rational-basis scrutiny.&#8221;
All of this, wrote Thomas &#8220;is symptomatic of the lower courts&#8217; general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right. If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.&#8221;
As Thomas points out, if a state placed a ten-day waiting period on abortions, the Supreme Court would be quick to step in with a review. The Ninth Circuit even struck down a county&#8217;s 50-day waiting period for nude-dancing licenses. And the Ninth Circuit struck down traditional marriage laws for supposed lack of evidence, despite thousands of years of human history. Thomas concludes, &#8220;The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court&#8217;s constitutional orphan.&#8221;
Thomas, of course, is right. And the judiciary&#8217;s willingness to stand by and watch the Second Amendment dismantled piecemeal is an abdication of Constitutional duty on a grand scale.

Justice Thomas RIPS Supreme Court For Ignoring Second Amendment: &#8216;The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is &#8230; This Court&#8217;s Constitutional Orphan&#8217;

Menu

Clarence Thomas

Articles tagged with Clarence Thomas

WATCH: Hammer On ‘The Conservative Review’ Podcast: Everything You Need To Know For The Supreme Court Term

Justice Clarence Thomas Attacks ‘Erroneous’ Precedent, Hinting At ‘Roe v. Wade’

HAMMER: Trump Has The Unilateral Power To Stop This Migrant Influx. He Just Needs To Act.

Clarence Thomas Mocks Retirement Rumors: ‘I Don’t Have A Lot Of Stress, I Cause Stress.’

Justice Clarence Thomas: Abortion Could Become A Tool Of Racists, Eugenicists

Pro-Life Victory: SCOTUS Reinstates Indiana’s Fetal Remains Disposal Law

Dr. Jill Biden: Perhaps It’s ‘Time To Move On’ From The Anita Hill Controversy

WATCH: Biden Takes ‘Responsibility’ For Anita Hill Not Being ‘Treated Well’

GREAT: Clarence Thomas: I’m Not Retiring

WATCH: Biden Rips ‘White Man’s Culture’ For Mistreatment Of Women

Here’s What Biden Thought About Using An ‘FBI Report’ To Clear Clarence Thomas

Ronan Farrow’s Mom Mia Farrow: Clarence Thomas Should Resign

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Anita Hill, The Janet Cooke Of Sexual Harassment

WATCH: Here’s How Clarence Thomas Responded To Allegations Against Him

ABC Political Analyst Matthew Dowd: Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh Are Sexual Predators

WATCH: SCOTUS’ Clarence Thomas Slams Cory Booker’s ‘Spartacus’ Moment

What? Dem Running For Congress Vows To Impeach Clarence Thomas

The Legal Team Challenging Harvard’s Admissions Policy Comprises Four Former Clarence Thomas Clerks

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Desperately Hating Clarence Thomas

Justice Thomas RIPS Supreme Court For Ignoring Second Amendment: ‘The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is … This Court’s Constitutional Orphan’