Justice Clarence Thomas Rips SCOTUS, and No Lives Matter

 

Whenever Justice Thomas calls out his colleagues on the Supreme Court, I am almost always delighted for a number of reasons. For one, his comments are incisive; for another, he usually represents my own views. And finally, in this particular case, he spoke up on the issue of life and death :

When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that ‘children are different’ and that courts must consider ‘a child’s lesser culpability,’ Thomas wrote. ‘And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a ‘young woman’s’ right to choose.

The ruling was regarding the effort to set limits on life sentences for juvenile criminals:

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected imposing limits on sentences for life without parole for minors. The 6-3 ruling reverses a trend toward more leniency for children and teens convicted of a crime and highlights the court’s strong conservative advantage. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was joined by the two other liberal judges in her dissent. She wrote, ‘The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up. For most, the answer is yes.’

Justice Sotomayor’s statement is foolish on its face. How is anyone able to tell the “maturity and rehabilitation” of a child who has committed murder?

So, it’s ironic that Justice Sotomayor thinks she can see into the future of a juvenile criminal (which is impossible) but she is indifferent to the babies whose future is destroyed for the convenience of their mothers? She has mercy for juvenile killers, but no mercy for the child who will have no chance at life.

In this case, the Court realized that, juvenile or not, there can be no sentence but mandatory life. At least those juveniles’ lives will be spared.

The fact that Planned Parenthood kills 247 black babies every day might be important to tell Americans; white Americans abort at 1/5 that rate. America, in spite of the incessant brainwashing of the Left, has started to shift its view:

Consider the left’s now standard language on abortion. While the majority of Americans continue to believe that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, public opinion has been drifting more and more pro-life. Solid majorities oppose abortion in the second and third trimester. Late term abortion is hugely unpopular, as is taxpayer funding of abortions. Furthermore, abortion itself is not seen as something positive. You are, after all, killing the human being in the womb.

Even more, people are realizing that there is a moral issue involved with abortion; women’s right to healthcare and her right to choose, in contrast to the life of a baby, sounds narcissistic and petty.

*     *     *     *     *

The mismanagement of the current administration is becoming impossible to hide. People slowly but surely are waking up to the fact that the people running the country are ideological, not patriotic, committed to disunity and chaos, not to exceptionalism and national security. Joe Biden wants to be loved by other countries, not respected. He doesn’t care about a self-sufficient and prospering electorate, only a dependent and helpless people. He doesn’t care who dies in the streets, unless the police are the ones shooting. Those of us who are white are systemic racists, so why should anyone care about us, except on election day?

And Joe Biden doesn’t really care if black people or white people live or die.

Certainly not if they’re babies.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Well put, Susan.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Well put, Susan.

    Thanks, Jim. It was shocking to realize that to this administration, it is true: no lives matter.

    • #2
  3. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible.  There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way.  They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together.  But yet, they believe.  I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas.  Impossible.  But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people.  Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible. There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way. They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together. But yet, they believe. I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas. Impossible. But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people. Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    I’ve given up trying to understand the thinking of Democrats. What little they do.

    • #4
  5. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    I love Justice Thomas’ writing. Cuts like a knife. From the case at hand, Jones v. Mississippi:

    The Court correctly holds that the Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a minor be permanently incorrigible as a prerequisite to a sentence of life without parole. But in reaching that result, the majority adopts a strained reading of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. 190 (2016), instead of outright admitting that it is irreconcilable with Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. 460 (2012)—and the Constitution. The better approach is to be patently clear that Montgomery was a “demonstrably erroneous” decision worthy of outright rejection. Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2).

    [ . . . ]

    Miller and Montgomery are from the same lineage of precedent that refashions the Eighth Amendment to accommodate this Court’s views of juvenile justice.[1] The similarities end there, however, because the decisions cannot be reconciled.

    [Footnote 1: See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 556, 578 (2005) (prohibiting the execution of a (barely) juvenile murderer who had bragged that his age would allow him to “ ‘get away with it’ ”); Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. 48, 74 (2010) (prohibiting life-without-parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders).]

    [ . . . ]

    Montgomery could not have been clearer that its rule transcended mere procedure: “Even if a court considers a child’s age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects ‘“unfortunate yet transient immaturity.”’” Id., at 208. The problem with this new rule is that it had little to do with Miller. Through a feat of legerdemain, Montgomery began by acknowledging that Miller did “‘not categorically bar a penalty for a class of offenders or type of crime,’” yet just three sentences later concluded that “Miller did bar life without parole . . . for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” 577 U. S., at 209. In a similar Janus-faced demonstration, Montgomery reiterated Miller’s assurance that “trial courts [need not] make a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility,” yet decided that “Miller drew a line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption.” 577 U. S., at 209–211. [2] These statements cannot be reconciled.

    [Footnote 2: The Court’s language in this line of precedents is notable. When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that “ ‘children are different’ ” and that courts must consider “a child’s lesser culpability.” Montgomery, 577 U. S., at 207–208 (emphasis added). And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a “young woman’s” right to choose. See, e.g., Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U. S. 292, 301 (1997) (Stevens, J., joined by Ginsburg and BREYER, JJ., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 899 (1992) (joint opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.); Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S. 502, 532 (1990) (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). It is curious how the Court’s view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue. ]

    C

    Just as the procedural rule of Miller created problems for the majority in Montgomery, the substantive rule of Montgomery creates problems for the majority in this case. If Montgomery is correct about the existence of a concrete class of offenders who—as a matter of fundamental constitutional law—are categorically exempt from a sentence of life without parole, then there must be a determination as to whether Jones falls within that protected class. Otherwise, the “line” Miller ostensibly “drew . . . between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption” is more fanciful than real. Montgomery, 577 U. S., at 209.

    Sure enough, this Court has often demanded factual findings when it comes to other classes of criminals that this Court has declared categorically exempt from certain punishments. See, e.g., Moore v. Texas, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (finding that an offender “ha[d] shown [that] he is a person with intellectual disability”); Madison v. Alabama, 586 U. S. ___, ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 8, 17–18) (vacating and remanding “for renewed consideration” of the record after a state court “found [a prisoner] mentally competent” and thus eligible for execution). I doubt that a majority of this Court would tolerate the execution of an offender who alleges insanity or intellectual disability absent a satisfactory finding to the contrary.

    In response, the majority suggests that insanity and intellectual disability are legitimate “eligibility criteri[a]” because they are easy to evaluate, whereas “permanent incorrigibility . . . ‘is difficult even for expert psychologists to [assess].’” Ante, at 8. This notion that the former categories are clear cut and predictable might come as news to the States that have spent years chasing the ever-evolving definitions of mental incompetence promulgated by this Court and its preferred experts. See, e.g., Moore, 586 U. S., at ___– ___ (slip op., at 2–10); Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. ___, ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 2, 5–18) (courts must heed “the force of the medical community’s consensus”); Hall v. Florida, 572 U. S. 701, 724 (2014). I trust, however, that future decisions will contain simple and static rules. 

    D

    Montgomery’s creation of a categorical exemption for certain offenders thus leaves us with two obvious options. First, we could follow Montgomery’s logic and hold that the “legality” of Jones’ sentence turns on whether his crime in fact “reflect[s] permanent incorrigibility.” 577 U. S., at 205, 209. Or we could just acknowledge that Montgomery had no basis in law or the Constitution. The majority, however, selects a third way: Overrule Montgomery in substance but not in name.

    [ . . . ]The least we can do is to fully own up to Montgomery’s sins.

    The majority also largely leaves untouched Montgomery’s violation of the rule that the Constitution “‘leaves the unavoidably moral question of who “deserves” a particular nonprohibited method of punishment to the judgment of the legislatures that authorize the penalty.’” Miller, 567 U. S., at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). When the Eighth Amendment was enacted, juveniles even younger than Jones could be tried as adults, and mandatory death sentences were available. See id., at 503, n. 2. “It is therefore implausible that a [15]-year-old’s . . . prison sentence—of any length, with or without parole—would have been viewed as cruel and unusual.” Ibid. By failing to condemn Montgomery’s expansion of Miller to an entire category of individuals, the majority blesses yet another step “on the path to further judicial displacement of the legislative role in prescribing appropriate punishment for crime.” 567 U. S., at 500 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

    This is writing that any functionally literate reader can understand, and the cool, perhaps amused, contempt drips off the page.

    • #5
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I’ve given up trying to understand the thinking of Democrats. What little they do.

    I’m not sure it can be called ‘thinking,’ at least for their great, unwashed mass supporters.  They’ve been conditioned to believe any words that come from a leftist’s mouth as truth, and are positions to be advanced.

    • #6
  7. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Clarence Thomas is the finest SCOTUS of my lifetime, even better than Antonin Scalia. 

    • #7
  8. Flicker Member
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible. There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way. They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together. But yet, they believe. I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas. Impossible. But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people. Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    It has always seemed to me that the most succinct difference between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats is that Republicans believe in guns to defend oneself and the death penalty for murder, but oppose abortion; while the Democrats oppose defending oneself and capital punishment but defend abortion.  It’s been that way all my life.

    I think the only commonality in reasoning for Democrats is that they are already here, and to the victor belong the spoils.

    • #8
  9. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Well said.

    • #9
  10. navyjag Lincoln
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Manny (View Comment):

    Clarence Thomas is the finest SCOTUS of my lifetime, even better than Antonin Scalia.

    Agree with Manny.  Clearest writer on the Court I have ever read. And been reading S.Ct. cases since 1967. 

    • #10
  11. navyjag Lincoln
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Maybe he just hires the best law clerks.  Who were English majors in college. 

    • #11
  12. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible. There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way. They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together. But yet, they believe. I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas. Impossible. But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people. Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    Intelligence and moral sanity do not always go together, Dr. Bastiat. 

    • #12
  13. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible. There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way. They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together. But yet, they believe. I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas. Impossible. But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people. Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    Intelligence and moral sanity do not always go together, Dr. Bastiat.

    Nor intellectual consistency.

    • #13
  14. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    navyjag (View Comment):

    Maybe he just hires the best law clerks. Who were English majors in college.

    I don’t think he hires English majors.  Their writing is clear and readable.

    • #14
  15. Flicker Member
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):
    Intelligence and moral sanity do not always go together, Dr. Bastiat.

    This is the first time I’ve seen “sanity” used correctly in a non-legal sense.

    And intelligence and intellectual coherence do not always go together either.

    Added: Oh, I see philo got here first.

    • #15
  16. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    I’ve never understood how anyone can be in favor of abortion but against the death penalty.

    Any other combination makes sense.

    If you’re unconvinced of the value of human life, and you’re in favor of both, well, ok.

    If you think human life is sacred, and you’re against both, well, ok.

    If you can tolerate the death penalty for criminals in the spirit of public safety or something, but you can’t imagine killing babies, well, ok.

    But anyone who thinks killing babies is ok but not convicted murderers – that’s just incredible. There is no way that makes any sense.

    And the most amazing thing is, probably 90% of Democrat voters think this way. They have been convinced to believe in two things that make no sense together. But yet, they believe. I couldn’t convince one person to believe in such mutually exclusive ideas. Impossible. But the Democrats convinced not just one person, but tens of millions of people. Many of them very intelligent.

    How did the Democrat party accomplish such an amazing feat?

    It’s not about sense, it’s about having the correct opinions. 

    • #16