Justice Thomas warns progressivism is a threat to America in rare public remarks

"Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government," Thomas said Wednesday evening, drawing a direct line between contemporary political movements and what he described as a departure from the Constitution’s original meaning.

"It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government," Thomas said. "It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-thomas-warns-progressivism-threat-democracy-rare-public-remarks

He is correct. Progressives are wrecking balls. Look at the decline of states and cities run by progressives.

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

He is correct. Progressives are wrecking balls. Look at the decline of states and cities run by progressives.

Did you miss that part where he was basing his premise on the alleged relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the alleged repudiation of the Constitution?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Did you miss that part where he was basing his premise on the alleged relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the alleged repudiation of the Constitution?

He is correct. Progressives think the constitution is getting in the way of progress.

Did'ja notice that calling out Ketanji Brown Jackson is racist, but it's okay to call out Clarence Thomas?

Lefties are fickle that way. Hypocritical is probably a better word.

BTW, I agree with Thomas. Progressivism tends to make people wards of the state. That's not what the Framers intended.

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

He is correct. Progressives think the constitution is getting in the way of progress.

Thank you for taking the trouble not merely to agree with Thomas but to also provide evidence to support that claim...oh wait a minute...

Do you know how many times God is mentioned in the body of the Constitution Not once. The authors of the Constitution were enthusiastic supporters. Some like Jefferson and Franklin were enthusiastic endorsers of it. Jefferson actually had his own version of the New Testament with all the miracles of Jesus excised out. These gentlemen had all seen the deleterious, even horrific, effects governments justifying their action in the name of religion. They wanted no part of it. If anything their Bible was the works of John Locke who was not, to put it mildly, a big fan of religion.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

Did'ja notice that calling out Ketanji Brown Jackson is racist, but it's okay to call out Clarence Thomas?

Lefties are fickle that way. Hypocritical is probably a better word.

BTW, I agree with Thomas. Progressivism tends to make people wards of the state. That's not what the Framers intended.

So who has been called out as racist for criticizing Jackson's decisions or public declarations? She's been quite vocal lately and I haven't seen any such comments directed at her critics.

And just like TedG, you apparently don't have a problem with what kind of garbage is used to justify a conclusion, just so long as it's a conclusion you agree with.

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Thank you for taking the trouble not merely to agree with Thomas but to also provide evidence to support that claim...oh wait a minute...

Do you know how many times God is mentioned in the body of the Constitution Not once. The authors of the Constitution were enthusiastic supporters. Some like Jefferson and Franklin were enthusiastic endorsers of it. Jefferson actually had his own version of the New Testament with all the miracles of Jesus excised out. These gentlemen had all seen the deleterious, even horrific, effects governments justifying their action in the name of religion. They wanted no part of it. If anything their Bible was the works of John Locke who was not, to put it mildly, a big fan of religion.

This will be fun

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/political-constitutionalism-and-forms-of-judicial-review-a-dual-approach-to-countermajoritarian-difficulty/E0016A3402755FA61CB9FCC70F1C29A3

https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/3911/galley/20744/view/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And just like TedG, you apparently don't have a problem with what kind of garbage is used to justify a conclusion, just so long as it's a conclusion you agree with

I’m going to dog walk you on this topic.

@Alan Zweibel how many progressives support the EC?

24 minutes ago, TedG said:

I’m going to dog walk you on this topic.

The articles you've linked to have nothing to do with Thomas's historical claims. They are about the authority of the Supreme Court

Why progressivism destroys everything

https://eppc.org/publication/why-progressivism-destroys-everything/

Clarence Thomas is one of the most intellectual Supreme Court justices and realizes the devastating effects of the progressive movement in the United States. I thank God that he is not like the liberal Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all appointed by the liberal socialist Democratic Party.

56 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Did you miss that part where he was basing his premise on the alleged relevance of the Declaration of Independence and the alleged repudiation of the Constitution?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The articles you've linked to have nothing to do with Thomas's historical claims. They are about the authority of the Supreme Court

Yes, progressives dislike the Supreme Court

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

First off, and most importantly, the declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The United States did not exist when it was composed. It was a brilliant piece of argument designed to support the desire of the 13 colonies to break away from the UK. As noted earlier, the United States founding legal document was the Constitution. There is no mention of God or any particular religion in the body of the Constitution.

Secondly, the Declaration of Independence was written by one person: Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a deist. So, his invocation of a Creator could apply to any monotheistic religion, including Islam or Deism.

5 hours ago, TedG said:

@Alan Zweibel how many progressives support the EC?

Whether you mean total numbers or percentages, I haven't a clue. Do you think that I'm your research assistant?