3 ms·
Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. Generally when the question "who the heck dissented on
by jbooth 9y ago
Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus.
Generally when the question "who the heck dissented on that?!?!" is asked, the answer is Thomas.
- zeveb 9y ago> Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. That's because he interprets the Constitution and the law according to what he believes them to mean, not according to what he wishes they would mean. In this case, he clearly states that he sees no constitutional requirement for the State to return property after it has been confiscated post-conviction (as an aside, the article title is misleading: this wasn't confiscation prior to or absent a conviction). The Constitution does not mandate all good things, nor does it forbid all bad things.
- jbooth 9y agoWell, that's your opinion, and Thomas's, but very frequently it's not the opinion of 8 other Supreme Court justices, several of whom also claim to be textual originalists. The constitution does not mandate all good things, does not forbid all bad things, but VERY NOTABLY includes the 9th amendment. They put that one in for a reason.