Uncle Clarence's wife now a teabagger activist

[Syt]

Woah, Clarence married a white chick?

Nigga, please.  Clarence Thomas makes Tiger Woods look like Tupac.

Dead?

[derspiess]

I get an odd sense of enjoyment watching Spicey dance on his crank about "stereotypical black men." 

[Jacob]

So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?

[Eddie Teach]

So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?

I think if anything her group's involved with came before the court, he'd be ethically bound to recuse himself. And yeah, it does look bad. But ultimately, it's a free country and she can do what she wants.

[DGuller]

So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?

If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

[garbon]

Laura Ingraham was cool till cancer struck her.  Then she went batshit and stopped having reports from her gay brother in Marin.

[Eddie Teach]

If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote. 

[Malthus]

She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.   

[garbon]

She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.  

racist?

[Malthus]

She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.   

racist?

Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott. 

[garbon]

Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott. 

[DGuller]

If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote. 

Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded.  How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded.  How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?

I think decisions with larger majorities *are* given more weight.

[CountDeMoney]

I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism.

Just Clarence Thomas.  Still plays house boy to Massa Scalia.

[Jaron]

Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.

Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?