“As per subsection 8 in the 1856 Chimney Sweep act in England, children have no legal right to avoid any carbon based injury. Whether it’s black lung then or Climate change now, precedent has been established.” --Corporate whore clarence, probably
Not a lawyer, but the majority opinion on Dobbs had a reference to a 1200s English law saying abortion is illegal and somehow that shows American precedent that abortions have always been illegal and Roe v. Wade was a fuck up. It also stated that it only reversed abortion and looking back to history cannot be used to overturn: mixed marriages(clarence is married to a white woman), black rights, etc. So we’re fucking you with bullshit reasoning but don’t you dare use that same reason so that it affects me.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I’ve heard legal podcasts discuss his opinions, and it’s a spot on parody of his insane logic. The way he dismisses the relevance of laws written in the United States by people who are alive and opining on the purpose of the laws they wrote on Twitter while insisting that medieval tomes are useful for making sense of what the founders intended is like listening to a stoned astrologist explain why he’s not an asshole for slipping condoms off while his partner isn’t looking.
“As per subsection 8 in the 1856 Chimney Sweep act in England, children have no legal right to avoid any carbon based injury. Whether it’s black lung then or Climate change now, precedent has been established.” --Corporate whore clarence, probably
Are you a lawyer? Because I feel like this is a really deeply informed roast of Thomas’ opinions.
Not a lawyer, but the majority opinion on Dobbs had a reference to a 1200s English law saying abortion is illegal and somehow that shows American precedent that abortions have always been illegal and Roe v. Wade was a fuck up. It also stated that it only reversed abortion and looking back to history cannot be used to overturn: mixed marriages(clarence is married to a white woman), black rights, etc. So we’re fucking you with bullshit reasoning but don’t you dare use that same reason so that it affects me.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I’ve heard legal podcasts discuss his opinions, and it’s a spot on parody of his insane logic. The way he dismisses the relevance of laws written in the United States by people who are alive and opining on the purpose of the laws they wrote on Twitter while insisting that medieval tomes are useful for making sense of what the founders intended is like listening to a stoned astrologist explain why he’s not an asshole for slipping condoms off while his partner isn’t looking.