clarence thomas

In 2005 California passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to those under 18. The law has constantly been challenged in the courts, so it was never fully enacted and now it never will be:

The court reached a decision in Brown v. the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) by a vote of 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissenting. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law would have created a new class of regulations for content aimed at children.

“No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,” Scalia wrote, noting that even fairy tales such as “Snow White” and “Cinderella” feature graphic descriptions of violence.

Dissenting on the decision were Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas. Justice Breyer brings up a point I thought when I first heard this decision:

“But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?” Breyer said.

“What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?”

Let little Johnny shoot, stab, decapitate or beat to a pulp video game character Susie, but just as long as she doesn't show any boob. If that happens then we have a problem!

Justice Clarence Thomas has been breaking the rules of the court for 13 years by not reporting his wife’s income. That income shows a direct conflict of interest with cases Thomas has ruled on, including Citizens United. As Jonathon Turley points out:

For many, the incident will be cited as evidence of how toothless these rules have become. There is little deterrent for a justice who fails to disclose required information for 13 years — including information that would have likely been used as a possible basis for a recusal motion. It takes Common Cause to launch a major campaign to get compliance with the requirements.

What will be fascinating is the next case to come before Thomas of a criminal appeal in a failure to disclose case or tax case. There was nothing particularly complex about this reporting form. While criminal defense attorneys often argue that such omissions do not warrant prosecution, Thomas is viewed as fairly hostile toward such defendants coming before the Court. I was just counsel in the case of a judge who was removed from the bench by the United States Senate on articles of impeachment that included his failure to report income in a bankruptcy filing.

Of course Thomas won’t disclose in the future. We have created a Supreme Court that is above the law and that is why it’s time to change the Constitution so that we have a way to rid ourselves of ignorant minds like this:

This is very interesting:

Justice David H. Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court will open a window into whether President Obama is truly a coolheaded, moderate technocrat, as claimed by Democrats, or a standard-bearer for some of the left's most extreme ideas, as claimed by Republicans.

The stakes are high - the nine justices set national law on divisive issues such as affirmative action, abortion, and religion. But Obama's choice will not shift the court's balance of power, which is divided among four liberals (John Paul Stevens, Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer), four conservatives (John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.), and one man in the middle (Anthony M. Kennedy). Obama's nominee will keep the liberal pack intact.

That’s written by non-other than Constitution shredding attorney John Yoo. I got a feeling Yoo is more worried about himself than the balance of the court. Chances are the next justice will hear arguments about things like torture and warrantless wiretapping, and who was one of the people who helped bring those things to life? John Yoo.