..if said corporation doesn't like a SCOTUS decision, they'll fund a candidate who will change laws to suit the corporation and SCOTUS be damned. way to go clarence!

any comment I might make would be deleted.

You'd think some of those liberal bloggers haven't had enough of their high tech lynching of this poor persecuted Judge.

He probably awakens at night in a cold sweat still hearing the cries outside his shanty : "Get some bandwidth."

that he could be replaced by an index card that says" I vote like Scalia on this case".

Would save us allot of money.

Did Clarence Thomas really say those things, or was he perched atop Scalia's knee while Scalia appeared to drink a glass of water?

Thomas makes no pretense about listening to arguments. His mind is made up before the case gets there in every instance. This isn't because he's well prepared, it's because he's driven by ideology rather than the law and precedent and he's not subtle enough to even go through the motions.

..thy name is conservative.

Instead of an (R) how about a (H)?

A true dip shit.

Fair criticism - "The President is a socialist, terrorist, communist, muslim who seeks to destroy our nation."

Unfair criticism - "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people."

See? Simple to understand. Us=fair Them=unfair.

But his votes speak Volumes!!!

What about his white wife?

is Gay Rights.

He doesn't want us to have them. Like Scalia he wants sodomy laws reinstated.

Check the record. While he's been as silent as the grave about everthing else THAT'S what he's spoken from the bench about.

Wonder whose pubic hairs are on his Coke can these days.

:D

"run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties,"

Is that what ironic means?

STFU Clarence . Undermining "our" liberties ? You mean undermining the liberties of the Corporations and the far right / neocon to circumvent the law and shred the constitution . Right wing activist hacks planted on the Supreme Court don't interpret the Constitution they are there to render it a meaningless piece of paper , they are saboteurs and traitors , period .

NOBODY is immune from public outrage, most especially the "most prestigious institution in Washington" as George Will calls them.

The public should and will hold people like Clarence Thomas to a higher standard. Do you get it, Justice?

It wasn't criticism that hurt the public's opinion of the court. It was your activism in giving us Bush vs. Gore, electing a president. It is you who is making a mockery of tenure by practically sleeping in court. You were a disgrace before your confirmation. Anita Hill's testimony was the biggest joke at my high school. Who doesn't remember the pubic hair and coke? Before I even understood politics I knew about you and what you were.

When people like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or O'Reilly make statements such as this, I generally am annoyed. But they are hacks. No credibility, just a big mouth with millions of GOP dollars behind it.

But Clarence Thomas is giving them the power of his supposed prestige. A man who has personally done much damage to America in a few key, activist decisions, derives more than annoyance from my heart today.

I am offended and outraged that this man has the power he does. You would do well to sit back against your chair and keep your mouth shut permanently, Justice Thomas.

is that Clarence Thomas says he has been protecting liberty!

"Questioning the Supreme Court runs 'the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties,' Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday."

I would be fascinated to read an opinion wherein Thomas preserved liberty, and please don't cite Bush v. Gore. I defy Thomas to name one opinion that he joined, or better yet penned, wherein liberty was preserved.

go F*CK yourself! Yes, I realize I'm taking the high road with this comment. LOL.

Oh, heavens! We shouldn't criticize the Court or impugn their motives. We ALL know when they crowned President Bush the Dumber, they had absolutely no ulterior motives, were completely apolitical, and had only our best interests at heart.

What gall this asswipe has!

Thomas has a difficult time maintaining a professional facade. He never had the stuff it takes to be in the position he is in so he compensates for it by acting and using a fake persona. To rational people he is already unmasked however he is unable to see this himself. He must maintain this lie at all costs. Should he finally be forced to face himself the result would be a demented rage. How does one own up to being a failure and a total fake.

Everytime I see the crybaby asshole I think of his pubic hair on a coke can. He is a disgusting human being.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that this nincompoop actually has a law degree, just like I'm trying to imagine G W Bush graduating from ANY college, but we all know rich kid Bush paid others to do his work while he drank beer and did a whole lot of puking!

This fool actually spoke at Howard University's Law School in 1994(Thurgood Marshall's Alma mater). As Justice Thomas began to speak, the Students in attendance raised their clenched fists and turned their backs to him.

There was a time a few years ago when people like Delay ripping the judicial system left and right. It was too the point the Sandra Day O'Connor publicly asked for it to be stopped. A judge in Illinois was killed by a white supremecist around that same time. An this asshole said nothing, yet he wants to speakout now. He's a kiss-ass and a self-hater and he's only speaking now because the president is black, and he doesn't like that.

Does it say a corporation is a "person"? What are these idiots congenitally stupid? Ulterior motive or no ulterior motive, it looks stupid and that is the signature of the modern day right wing.

Justice Thomas said: Questioning the Supreme Court and other government branches needs to stay within the range of fair criticism or "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties,"

Justice john Paul Stevens's dissent to the Citizens United decision is much more damning of the majority than anything anyone else has said in the case's aftermath. Indeed, that dissent undoubtedly informed President Obama's decision to call the court out in the State of the Union address. Seek the dissent out and read it. Stare decisis is the judicial concept of respecting previous decisions--the very basis of legal precedent. Justice Stevens's dissent contains the following sentence which--I think--sums up the radical nature of the court's finding in Citizens United:

...[The] ruling...strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, “the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion” that “permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.”

Justice Roberts and his cohorts have gone from interpreters of the law to legislators, and there's no remedy short of a constitutional amendment to stop the harm they've done. No law is safe from these people. None. Thomas should either find a more scalding criticism than the one from his fellow justice or shut the *bleep* up.

is too stoopid to do anything other than what scalia tells him.