40 Burst results for "Clarence"
Fresh update on "clarence" discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"God bless you, thank you for the call. Thanks for listening to K rim. And I know that angers people that I actually bring those things up, but I think it's important. You know what stand for something? It angers me that a lot of Republicans don't want to weigh in on the big issues of the day because it might hurt them socially, down at the country club, or it might hurt them financially because they're doing business with a bunch of pro abortion industries. In the Memphis area, for example. You know, I don't care about that. I mean, there are some things more important than making a dollar. 8 four four 747 88 68 fence are told for each telephone number. This week, Greta van susteren back on newsmax, she's got an incredible brand new show called the record with Greta van susteren every night Greta proving that people want real news without the media spin. You can watch her show tonight at 6 o'clock eastern Greta broadcasting from Washington with the real news, giving you the facts you need to know she's asking the tough questions the big media will not ask. Find out why millions of people are making the switch to newsmax. It's on all major cable systems and streaming platforms. Check your program guide and get information on Greta's new show. You can also text the word Greta to 39 747 that's Greta to 39 747 switch to newsmax today real news for real people, texting and rolls for automated text messages and that message and data rates may apply. This is Sarah's O'Reilly auto parts story. Driving cross country with two young children is ambitious to say the least. Then our check engine light came on. We pulled into O'Reilly auto parts and they tested it. Turned out it was a faulty sensor. They referred us to a great mechanic just down the street and we were back on the road in no time. I hope parts. All right, I feel a little better. So my congressman is a very proud to be pro life, congressman David castoff, congressman writing this just a moment ago, today the Supreme Court took a historic step overturning roe V wade. This will rightfully return the authority to regulate abortion back to the states and to our elected representatives. Abortion laws should be debated and decided by the American people. He's absolutely right, not dictated by judges. I will always remain committed to advocating for strong pro life policies and upholding the sanctity of life. And again, I culture issue culture war issue aside. This is a political issue. And by the way, clarence Thomas was absolutely right to bring in oberfeld, the issue of gay marriage. The same issues apply here. It is not mentioned, it is not mentioned in the constitution, these are states issues. And if you want to go to abort, if you want to get an abortion, you can go to California. There'll be more than happy to kill your baby for you. All right, let's go to the phones here, 8 four four 747 88 68. Let's go to bob in Collierville, Tennessee, Kwan, our great radio station, bob, what's on your mind? Well,.
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York State Gun Restrictions
"There was a great decisions from Elise 6 of the Supreme Court Justices, passing down advisory methods when I say advisory methods, I mean direction as to how to treat the Second Amendment, specifically the way New York State has treated the Second Amendment, proving for clarence Thomas and others that New York's restrictions on the Second Amendment is out of control. Let me just give you an example of one caveat to gun ownership in New York State. According to laws in New York State, you have to provide a reason. For you to carry a gun. Meaning you go to a gun store to buy a gun, a part of your evaluation on whether or not you're capable of culpable of handling a firearm is that you have to then provide them a reason why you should be able to carry a firearm. And then they have discretion to deny your reasoning. And home self defense, according to New York State law, isn't enough for you to be able to carry a gun.
Fresh update on "clarence" discussed on Balance of Power
"Headquarters in New York under these Pellegrini on this special edition of balance of power with David Westin. Yes. And it is chief. Thousands gathering in the capital grounds and in front of the Supreme Court responding to this major story unfolding with the Supreme Court overturning roe V wade. President Biden calling on voters to elect a Congress that will restore the protections of roe V wade as federal law. This fall rho is on the ballot. And Biden also vowing to fight for the right of women to travel safely. In a concurring opinion justice clarence Thomas says the court should reconsider other rulings, including those protecting the right to contraception, same sex relationships and same sex marriage. Former Deputy Attorney General and former deputy solicitor general Don ayer in the Reagan and Bush administrations telling David Weston just a few moments ago, the court could go even further. They appear to be ready to simply go off and follow their sense of what the founders wanted and just implemented and not really pay attention to where that may take the country. And they are also telling us an opinion on the clean air act is coming in a few days Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine says the decision will trigger political casts. Global news 24 hours a day, I'm Denise Pellegrini here on balance power and now let's check in with Charlie the business flash, Charlie. Thank you very much Denise Pellegrini. Here's what's going on. Stocks are rallying. We're holding close to session highs. The Dow, the S&P NASDAQ all up now by 2.2% or better. The S&P is up 91 up 2.4%. Dow Jones
National Review: SCOTUS Strikes Historic Blow for 2nd Amendment Rights
"There's a very good summary of this by Charles cook at national review In New York rifle versus brewing the court affirmed the gun rights or do the same protection as all other constitutional rights Stanley the most important Second Amendment ruling In recent times it is potentially the most important second ruling in American history And one of the reasons for that is it's author clarence Thomas For all the bru ha ha the question at hand was rather straightforward from the state of New York required that applicants for gun carry permits Demonstrate a special need for self protection distinguishable from that at the general community Where's New York obliged by the constitutional offer a shall issue regime of the sort that 43 of the other 49 states have adopted So the left is trying to suggest this is some kind of a radical decision because they're nuts That's what they are They don't believe in individual liberty except when it comes to their ideology
Fresh update on "clarence" discussed on Stephanie Miller
"Good morning. You know what? You know what these people, you know what? This is very hard. Let me chase you. I don't know how you gonna contain it. Because this FCC stuff is very difficult for me to say the only articulate thing I can say right now. Yes. It's really relative, isn't it? Yeah. Well, you know what? Welcome, welcome to this year. Gilead, forced reproductive slavery. For women, and if you don't understand that your womb is a female on this in this country right now is enslaved to an ideology, a religious ideology. When they're supposed to be separation of church and state, which are what I'm told over and over and over that the framers created, Alice told the other day that somebody was devised that felt that it was divinely inspired. That's supposed to be a separation of these ideologies. Yeah. I don't know what they expect to have happen here because the reality is, you know, hypocrisy seems to be the only thing that Republicans and the Supreme Court can wear. That's their outfit of choice because yesterday, states couldn't make decisions about gun rights. And today they can about my womb. They don't care. If it makes sense. Angela, you and I were talking just before the break that someone just asked me yesterday, do you think, you know, they'll, you know, like revise this a little or you said maybe hold off till after the midterms because this court has become so political. And we were like, no. They've been planning this for 70 years. Like, no. They go balls out. When they have power, right? Exactly. And as the thing that we never do, as Democrats are as progressives, which is when you have the power, use it. All this concern over the filibuster, which isn't for its protected in a constitution, it isn't something that they have a right to. All of this concern about stacking the all this concern about, look, no, that's not when we do things. More people voted in the last election than have ever voted before. I need people to stop thinking that's about the number of people who vote. Because it isn't. It is about the fact that what we voted these people into power and they are supposed to make these decisions and what we have to do now is we have to we have to stack this court. We have got to get people on this court that are representative of the actual law and the rights of this people of this country. This is insane. This court does not represent the will of the American people. No, the minority. We are representing a religious fanatic a small segment who happened to have money and power. And by the way, Angela, when you say like, oh, they were going to do this because maybe politically, well, you know what? This is awful, but let's take it and go good. You mother. Right. Ro goes down right, no gun safety that 90% of Americans want. He's January 6th hearings are blowing up 20 million people are watching. 60% of them seem to think Trump should be convicted. You don't think you're gonna get a blue tsunami up your ass. You just wait. Yeah. But they don't care. But they don't care because what they're also like, what we all know, and what we need to understand is this year, at midterms, they're already they're going to contest every single election. They are going to do whatever they can and through their state legislatures, et cetera, to make sure that that election puts them back in power. They're not going to listen to our votes. Because so this is a Civil War. They have already fired. They did it on January 6th. Last year. And we just haven't gotten in the fight. People that haven't gotten over the Civil War want us to get over January 6th. Right. Thank you. And I'm looking at people protesting and notice how this protest looks remarkably like a peaceful protest. Like, I'm just like, the hypocrisy of it in the idea that we need to be I have for years listen to liberals and progressives tell me in the condescending fashion that I don't need to be worried about roe. Right. That we don't need to organize this much around this. That we don't need to be vote as this is our issue, because it's protected. And here we are. Nothing we have has ever been protected. When you black, you know that. Because we don't actually have those rights already. I don't have second memory. Do you think? I will die mad about Hillary T-shirt was like a random fashion choice this morning. But all the people that told us we were being hysterical and, oh, it doesn't matter. Here we are. Here we are. Good morning, Gilead. And clarence Thomas has already gone on record saying obergefell is next. And we were saying the only thing that's going to save loving is that because he wants to his crazy terrorist wife, unless he's sick of her and then loving is probably gone too. Let me tell you something. I'm willing to give up the right to marry white people to keep control of my body. I mean, if you know what I'm saying, like, I love y'all, I really there's something in my family about some of you and my best Friends. I'm in love with I'm in love with a white man right now. I understand, but you know, the magic in mystery of eating lunch next to you has long been worn off. Is he aware of how disposable he is? Whatever your political stands, you know. Well, he's the next door to each other. I mean, I don't have a necessarily if we gonna talk about rights. You know what I'm saying? We can talk about it. But the reality is, you know, you know how I love my white people. I really do. I celebrate all 11. But they're disposable. But this is just, it's so the idea that we think, because we say it all the time, we got to get people to vote and yes, we do. But understand that more people voted than ever voted before and we're still litigating that election. They are still saying it didn't happen. So that's clearly my mouth. As a white friend of yours, I just want you to know that I support you for America. You know, food, water, something necessities. White people Compete says no. Well, you're actually not sure this is the black power hour during which you are in fact. Yes. A delivery system for frangela in this hour. That was all I am. Mike Pence celebrates overturning a rogue way of calling for a national ban on abortion. Okay, good. So everyone calling him a hero two minutes ago for not breaking the law because he didn't want to go to prison. Go ahead. Let me explain something. Francesc and I both have been not breaking the law consistently. Our entire lives. We do it. I don't even break the law on my sleep. Either this shit. Really? And we have overseas a single heroic statement. Nobody's ever said we were heroes. The bar for white men in the cis white man in this country seems very low for him. I believe children of the future. Who said it? Who said it first on this show? Who said it? Mike Pence is up to his albino eyebrows in this. Right? Sean comiskey, the children. That's right. Okay, I want to get a perspective. Although Sean is approaching middle age by now. So stop calling him a child. 25. I just keep getting younger and younger. Thank you,
Justice Thomas Publishes Opinion on 2nd Amendment Ruling
"The Supreme Court today whenever I see a decision written by clarence Thomas I take my time and I read it Because the man is brilliant And he actually believes in the constitution So by the 6 three decision today in the case called New York State rifle and pistol association Inc at all versus superintendent of New York State police Bruin So let me read you the syllabus Because I can't read all 135 pages and keep you as listeners State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license whether inside or outside the home An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside of his home may obtain an unrestricted license to quote having carry on quote a concealed pistol or revolver he can prove that quote proper cause exists That's the key phrase proper cause exists That's what's in the New York law An applicant satisfies the proper clause requirement only if he can demonstrate a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community Now that's almost impossible Petition his brain and Coke and Robert Nash or adult law abiding New York residents Who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interests and self defense The state denied both of the applications for unrestricted licenses Allegedly because Coke and Nash failed to satisfy the so called proper cause requirement Petitioners then sued responded state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications For declaratory and injunctive relief
Fresh update on "clarence" discussed on The Larry Elder Show
"All right, welcome to The Crown Jackson show podcast, listen, guys. I just wanted to come back on today and I wanted to do a live reaction. Obviously, this is big news. Roe V wade has been overturned praise God. Listen, I know there's a lot of people out there that are going to be upset. I'm sorry. I don't care. Roe V wade was bad law from the get go. It's an evil practice, a nation like the United States as much as it has been blessed by judeo Christian values. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, abortion shouldn't be a major practice in the United States. Yet it is. Even still with roe V wade overturned, I need you to understand that there's still work to be done, right? There's still work to be done. Even in Europe, even with roe V wade overturned, Europe, Europe isn't as extreme with abortion as America is. This is simply a matter of bad law. Now, for all of you that still, you ladies out there that still want to claim your body, your choice and kill your babies, you'll still be free to do so. You're just going to have to find the states that are willing to do it. We know democratic states will do it. All right, so this is all that's happening is that abortion is no longer codified in federal law. The Supreme Court says we want our hands off of it. Now it goes back to the states. So some states are going to perform abortion, some states are not. I would say that I don't think you're going to see many states change. However, I suspect people like California, which they've already done, and New York will go even further left when it comes to abortion, and then you'll see places perhaps like Oklahoma that's done it. Florida or Texas go further to the right, but even in places like Florida, you still see, are they still allow abortion up to 15 weeks. Abortion is not constitutional. It is, it isn't in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution will you see it state that a woman has a right to kill her child that's inside of her womb. And I gotta say this, I've always felt like abortion was a racial issue in large part. Now, the left has dumbed it down and dumb people down to a point today where even, you know, white liberals are big time for it, but you go back to the days of Margaret Sanger and what she wanted to do was eliminate a racist that she thought were inferior to hers, a lot of these abortion clinics are close to areas where minorities live intentionally so. I believe approximately 70 to 80% of these clinics are, you have states like New York City that we're black babies, more black babies are aborted than born. This is great news. So again, it'll turn the states and I gotta say this. And again, this is just me reacting live. Perhaps I'll come back later. I don't know. But this is exciting praise, God. I mean, to live in an era, the era that we're living in, it is such a blessing. I know that we have been through a lot with these lockdowns. We saw these Republicans turn on us yesterday with this a Second Amendment, a nonsense, even though justice clarence Thomas issued a brilliant opinion when it comes to our rights that are given to us by God, including the second, including the Second Amendment where the where these politicians shouldn't be able to touch them. The federal government shouldn't be able to touch them. But I want to add this to this, I hope, and pray will make men and women alike grow up. Seriously, seriously, the children are a blessing from God, even if you have to give children up for adoption. They are a blessing from God. And I'm sorry women. If you want to see a better society, I say, as I've said before, not to be grotesque, but I think it's true. Close your legs and you will watch morality spread through the nation. You should be picking better men and men and men to step up and bee man, perhaps when men figure out that they can't just have sex with a woman and she'll have an abortion, maybe they'll grow up to be men. I think this is all around. This is, this is going to be best for society. I know everybody is concerned about James revenge. I pray to God that violence like that doesn't occur. But even if it does, it does not mean that we didn't do the right thing today. And I want to praise every single one of you pro life activists that have been out. I've just been a mouthpiece for a very short period of time. I've participated in some small protests, not very many to be honest, but I've written about this. I've talked about this, but honestly, the praise. I give you pro life back to this honor..
Charlie Dives Into Clarence Thomas' Second Amendment Ruling
Fresh update on "clarence" discussed on Morning Edition
"And a.m. 8 20. NPR news and the New York conversation. Live from NPR news in Washington, I'm Amy held. President Biden is calling on the house to quickly pick up and pass a narrow bipartisan gun safety Bill, the Senate passed last night. In what would be the first congressional gun control measure in three decades. Meantime, NPR's Barbara sprout reports, the Department of Justice is pushing back on the Supreme Court's decision to broadly expand gun rights. Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, the DoJ said in a statement that it respectfully disagrees with the court's conclusion that the Second Amendment is at odds with restrictions currently in place in New York. The department said it is quote committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws. In his opinion for the conservative majority, justice clarence Thomas said that other constitutional rights don't require people to demonstrate to the government a special need, he said the Second Amendment right is no different and that New York's proper cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing the citizens from exercising their right to bear arms. Barbara sprint and PR news, Washington. And aftershock has hit eastern Afghanistan today killing several people, according to state media, two days after a magnitude 6 quake killed hundreds there. The mountainous area was already struggling amid its worst drought in decades, the earthquake damaged or destroyed thousands of homes and concerns are growing about food shortages and disease spread. The U.S. says it's sending medical teams to help. It's NPR news. On member station WNYC at 7 32, good Friday morning. 66 and sunny now today, sunshine and a high of 81. We have delays this morning on NJ transit's Morris and Essex line and on this in the city on the B DJ and Z trains. NYPD commissioner kishon Seoul says it's still illegal to carry a gun in public without a permit, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling strike and down a key provision of the state's gun control law. Here's Seoul speaking shortly after the ruling came down. The important thing to know today is that nothing changes. If you have a premise permit, it is not automatically converted to a carry permit. If you carry a gun illegally in New York City, you will be arrested. The high court found that a state law requiring gun owners to show proper calls when applying for a concealed carry permit was too restrictive and infringed on Second Amendment rights. The ruling makes it easier to legally carry guns in cities across the country in New York State people still have to apply for permit to carry, but there are no but they are now fewer reasons at the state can deny you one. New York City's health department is offering monkeypox vaccines for people may have been recently exposed to the virus. There are now 30 confirmed cases in the city. The shadows available to gain bisexual men who have had multiple partners in the last two weeks, however all vaccination appointment slots are filled through this Monday, more appoints will be at his Sunday for the coming week, vaccines are being given at Chelsea clinic on 9th avenue and appointments can be made online. Researchers at Cornell University are drilling two miles into the ground to see if they can heat the campus using the planet's natural warmth, the project is called earth source heat and it represents a clean energy alternative to using fossil fuels. The scientists are starting by testing The Rock under university owned parking lot to see how much heat is available there. They hope the university
Supreme Court strikes New York gun law, expanding gun rights
"In a major ruling for a gun rights the Supreme Court has struck down a restrictive New York law The law requires people to show a particular need for carrying a gun to get a license to have one in public In a 6 three ruling the high court struck down the law dating back to 1913 with justice clarence Thomas writing the constitution protects the right to carry a handgun for self defense outside the home The court's first major gun decision in more than a decade comes as Congress works on gun legislation after a series of mass shootings The rulings ultimately expected to let more people legally carry guns in the nation's biggest cities as several states have similar laws now likely to be challenged Sagar Meghani Washington
Ginni Thomas responds to 1/6 panel, hearings stretch to July
"The select committee investigating the capitol riot plans to continue its public hearings into next month Members of the committee investigating the riot by backers of former president Donald Trump planned for additional hearings in July committee chair Mississippi's Benny Thompson says a lot of information has been coming in including new documentary film footage of Trump's final months in office The panel is also working on an interview with Virginia Ginnie Thomas a longtime conservative activist Mary the Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas She's been asked to talk about her communications with Trump's team ahead of and during the day of the insurrection This month's final hearing is expected to highlight testimony from former Justice Department officials about Trump's proposals to reject the election results Tim McGuire Washington
"clarence" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"The law. An incredibly persuasive writer. Michael, in closing here, I have to ask you, what does he say in the book in the movie? I've not seen the movie. I've been meaning to. And I encourage our audience to check it out, created equal. About him not asking questions very often. What is the reason for that? We talked to him about this in the movie. Any more extensively in the book. And it's not too late to see the film, as I said. It's still screaming. You know, Amazon and many other places, if you go to our website, manifold productions dot com. You could find out how to stream it. And it's not an either or I recommend people watch the movie, and read the book, which is also available at Amazon and Barnes and nobles, and wherever else folks are sold. But he does talk about that at length. He really feels that each advocate during oral argument gets 30 minutes. And he thinks it's their time. And anything that any justice question or argument between the justice takes away from their time. And he wants to give him a chance to make their case. But maybe more importantly, as Mark was saying earlier, he talks about the process in the court and we are very focused on oral argument, but this is an appeals court, and that's not the heart of what they do. What they mainly do is write opinions, circulate them, discuss them. We're just as Thomas takes a leadership role as Mark said he wrote more opinions than any other justice. He defends them. He talks about them. He has a major leadership role. Many people now call this the Thomas court, whereas it's really the Roberts court, but in some ways he's the intellectual leader. And he just has a different view of oral argument. I do think it's notable that now that during COVID, when it was all virtual and more orderly, just as Thomas asked more questions. It's very good created equal. Everyone check it out. It's terrific. Justice Thomas in his own words. I want to just say this in closing. Every parent out there, you need to make sure your child is aware and is educated on who clarence Thomas is. It's one of the most amazing stories. It really is. Growing up in poverty and becoming a Supreme Court Justice, it's extraordinary. Thank you both. Created equal. Everyone check out a copy. Thank you very much. Thanks, Charlie. How many years have I been telling you about really factor producer Andrews right here doing an Iron Man? Thanks to relief factor. And truth is, I know there are millions of people. In fact, some say over a 100 million people struggling with some kind of pain. Maybe from exercise or just getting older, that can do it getting older, which is why I'm so impressed with the people at relief factor dot com. They are on a mission. You rarely see this kind of focus and commitment. They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and wants to literally double their total number of happy customers in the next year. And I believe they'll do it. So here's the deal. If you're struggling with back pain, neck pain shoulder hip or knee pain, even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three week quick start, still discounted only 1995. Go to relief factor dot com that's relief factor dot com. Check it out right now. Relief factor dot com you should order the three week quick start two. Discount only 1995 to see if it will work for you. I think it possibly could. Give your body what it needs to heal itself, go to relief factor dot com that's relief factor dot com. Check it out.
Why Doesn't Clarence Thomas Ask Many Questions? Michael Pack Explains
"In closing here, I have to ask you, what does he say in the book in the movie? I've not seen the movie. I've been meaning to. And I encourage our audience to check it out, created equal. About him not asking questions very often. What is the reason for that? We talked to him about this in the movie. Any more extensively in the book. And it's not too late to see the film, as I said. It's still screaming. You know, Amazon and many other places, if you go to our website, manifold productions dot com. You could find out how to stream it. And it's not an either or I recommend people watch the movie, and read the book, which is also available at Amazon and Barnes and nobles, and wherever else folks are sold. But he does talk about that at length. He really feels that each advocate during oral argument gets 30 minutes. And he thinks it's their time. And anything that any justice question or argument between the justice takes away from their time. And he wants to give him a chance to make their case. But maybe more importantly, as Mark was saying earlier, he talks about the process in the court and we are very focused on oral argument, but this is an appeals court, and that's not the heart of what they do. What they mainly do is write opinions, circulate them, discuss them. We're just as Thomas takes a leadership role as Mark said he wrote more opinions than any other justice. He defends them. He talks about them. He has a major leadership role. Many people now call this the Thomas court, whereas it's really the Roberts court, but in some ways he's the intellectual leader. And he just has a different view of oral argument.
"clarence" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"So, Mark, what is one of the takeaways from the book that you think that kind of one of our average listeners or average viewers will take away from reading this book? What do you think will be one of their things that they'll learn that they'll take away that they might not have otherwise known about clarence Thomas? His amazing life, number one, from pinpoint George up to the Supreme Court. But as you were talking about before in terms of the left requiring the think a certain way, justice Thomas really sort of in a much more detail than he does in the movie or even in his memoirs, really takes on the left and the destructiveness of their policies and why it was so selfish by the left to insist on policies that don't work that they don't care about people. You know, we talked about the black leadership and requiring justice Thomas to think a certain way. The black leadership is actually out of sync. With black Americans rank in file, poll after poll on issue after issue from school choice to abortion affirmative action to defund the police. And so it's this crazy thing Charlie where clarence Thomas is a threat to them because they have power and they get a lot of money, right? And if you go back to the confirmation, the NAACP did bizarrely oppose clarence Thomas, but it was at the insistence of the AFL CIO, a labor union, right? That funds the NAACP. And it provided the basis for both them and the women's groups of the pro abortion women's groups to attack justice Thomas and oppose him. But you really, you know, the movie is beautiful and powerful and it's visual, but the book is going to bring you much more inside the mind of justice Thomas and how he's talking about issues. Contemporary issues, policy issues that are out there, but on his life most especially in the lessons he's learned from these years, he's been both on the Supreme Court and in the Reagan administration. The justice Thomas memoirs went up to, they were published in 2007. There was a wonderful book, but it only goes up to the time he went on the Supreme Court. So this book talks to the justice about his judicial philosophy about some of the cases about his relationships with the justices like justice Scalia. So it's a real insight into how the court works, how cases are decided. And some of these important cases that Michael spent a lot of time talking to justice Thomas about, like grutter V bollinger, which is a race case, affirmative action case with Michigan. But you really get to see the justice taken on his critics and talking about his life. I just think that's so important. America is a freer country thanks to the leadership of clarence Thomas. There is no doubt. And I don't think he gets the credit he deserves, and he doesn't even want it. That's the amazing thing. You know, he writes more opinions per year than any justice on the Supreme Court three times as many as some of his colleagues. So in terms of that influence and not seeking the limelight, he is out there laying down his vision of the lock originalism that is leaving the court and we're going to see hopefully in Dobbs is coming around time and time again to justice Thomas's views on.
Mark Paoletta on New Clarence Thomas Book 'Created Equal'
"clarence" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Dot com for full list of where it's streaming. But Mark pail out of my co author, you know, quickly felt there was a lot of good stuff that wasn't there. I always tell the story that as we cut the film down from 30 hours, the first cut was 9 hours and Mark thought that was the perfect length. So he has spent his time since the movie lobbying for something else. And he came up with the idea that we'd do a book based on some of the material that isn't in the film. And as you said, Charlie, the book is 95% new material. And again, unless you hear clarence Thomas tell his story, you know, they're more most of it, except for a few of my questions and mark's footnotes. They're really clarence Thomas to talking and telling you about his life and ideas. So Mark, any thoughts on that as we get the conversation started? Sure. I worked on justice Thomas's confirmation back in 1991 and have been a lifelong friend of his. And, you know, when we met Michael who was interested in making this film, it was just a perfect convergence of folks who wanted to tell justice Thomas story and a filmmaker who can tell it in the right way. And Michael is an extraordinary film filmmaker, and we're blessed that he took on this project. And as Michael said, there was just so much being cut away as we were making the movie that it would be a crime, if you will, to not have some of these exchanges sort of get out to the American people. And I thought, you know, people watch a movie and some people and surprisingly here watch I've watched it multiple times, but a book is something different. And we've organized it in a way that's very, very accessible. So it's chronological through his life just like the movie, but we've broken it up in a way where you could open up the table of contents and you can look at his life and sort of go to a certain part of it. You can read it all the way through, obviously. But there's other parts where you can look at a chapter and all the subheadings which we put a lot in so that it's very accessible and almost like a reference book. And it's something about a book sitting on your desk or sitting somewhere where you can look at it more and just glean justice Thomas wisdom and thoughts on things. And that's why I thought it would be a great contribution to get this book out to the American public so they could learn more about justice Thomas in his 30th year, right? 33 on the Supreme Court. Yeah. So Mark, you worked with him during the confirmation fight. That's a confirmation fight, unlike any other, unless you worked on the bork or Kavanaugh confirmation fight. I'm sure you cover that in detail in the book. I know you mentioned it in the movie. What can you kind of tell our audience, tease our audience a little bit about that? Because you were there front and center, but I'm sure rehearing it from his perspective, you probably learned new things. I'm not sure I learned new things. This has been a passion of mine in terms of clarence justice Thomas, you know, defending his name through all of that. At the end of those hearings, of course, the American people believe clarence Thomas 58% to 24%. So that means they need a hill was lying in that ran across both men and women. But these were these allegations that were last minute that Anita hill had accused justice Thomas of talking dirty, essentially, not even, you know, it sort of sexual harassment, but certainly no touching all a lie. The Senate Judiciary Committee looked into it. It was then headed by Joe Biden at the time. They looked into it quickly, but thoroughly spoke to the relevant people and came back in the Senate Judiciary Committee including Biden said there's nothing here and let's move forward with the confirmation. But then of course somebody leaked it and that became the spectacle that became known as the hill Thomas hearings where Anita hill made these accusations justice Thomas, you know, credibly and firmly denied them. The other witnesses there, 12, not a single person who worked with justice Thomas in Anita hill. Believed in need of help. There were 12 people who testified for justice Thomas, who had been colleagues and said nothing like this happened. I needed help not telling the truth. She didn't have a single person who testified in her behalf that worked together with them. She had she had four witnesses very weak. And I think the American people saw through it because they broadcast it, it was without the filters, right? Of the corporate media to tell the story, the way they want to tell it. And at the end of those days, the three days of hearings, they firmly believe, overwhelmingly, that justice Thomas was telling the truth. The name of the book is created equal. Is that correct the same title as the movie? Is that right? So very quickly, Michael, in the conversations with clarence Thomas, I mean, he has been under attack relentlessly for years. It seems as if they've never let the the Anita hill kind of drama stop. It's almost like that was the starting point. I believe they hate him because he is a black constitutional conservative and they just don't like that. I think they consider that. And I'm going to say something they say, a race trader. How much do you talk about that in the book? Because I know the theme is trying to not focus on race, created equal, but it's hard to ignore with considering how the media almost emphasized it all the time. Well, it is a lot in the book, and it's a lot in the film. Of course, more in the book. But it's amazing the amount of attacks that he's sustained since he came out as a black conservative during the Reagan administration. It's been relentless. And it's continued on to yesterday and the day before, really, with the attacks on Jenny, but I am shocked. Always shocked at how just as you imply Charlie that they're left is willing to attack him using racist stereotypes and racist tropes. You know, they depict him in Ku Klux Klan revs. They depict him as a shoeshine boy to justice Scalia. They always call him an Uncle Tom and things that they would never say. If you could not say to a progressive black man and get away with it and you know, I'm a conservative and I've been attacked, but really the attacks that black conservatives are staying is really unique. I mean, it's particularly vicious. I mean, I'm a conservative no one has ever called me a traitor to my race. You know, they suffer in a different way. And it's very moving here justice time has talked about it..
"clarence" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk show created equal, a book about clarence Thomas in his own words, pretty awesome conversation and as well as Justin Olsen, who is running for the United States Senate in Arizona. Email me your thoughts is always freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com and register today for our student action summit. People of all ages are welcome, by the way. You go to TP, USA dot com slash SAS that is TPUSA dot com slash SAS. It's going to be amazing. We have Kayleigh McEnany Ted Cruz, Josh hawley Greg gutfeld, Kat timpf, Pete hegseth Byron donalds, and brought to you by turning point action. We have Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Go to TP, USA dot com slash SAS that is TP USA dot com slash S, a, S, TP USA dot com slash SAS email me your thoughts as always, freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Buckle up everybody here. We go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running The White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, turning point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific mortgage at Andrew and Todd dot com. I've said for quite a while that one of the heroes of our country. That gets almost no credit and he deserves credit but he almost demands no credit, I should say, is clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas is one of the most extraordinary people alive. He is a fighter for liberty and for the constitution and we have with us the producers and the people behind the great film that everyone should see created equal and the soon to be released book that I think everyone should check out and that is Michael pack and Mark pauletta. Welcome, Mark and Michael to the Charlie Kirk show. Thank you for having us on. Thank you, Charlie. So Michael, tell us first about the movie or actually first tell us about the book that then inspired the movie and tell us what you have learned from the exceptional clarence Thomas. Well, so the way the movie came about, it's been about two years since it was released. It is that a bunch of people who were friends of justice Thomas a new me were concerned about how people who hated him in the left were telling a story. So I had not known that much about clarence Thomas at the time, but after meeting him, you quickly realized that what you said in your intro, trolley, that he's a great American with a great story. And I really wanted to tell it. So after working on the film for a while, I came to the conclusion he should tell the story himself in his own words that he and Jenny should be the only interviews. And I interviewed them for over 30 hours over multiple months. You know, more a longer interview more access than any Supreme Court Justice has ever given anyone in the history of the Supreme Court. And we worked on the film, and it was a two hour film. It was released for us to movie theaters till COVID knocked it out, and then it was nationally broadcast on PBS. Now has been streaming. And it's still streaming for those who want to see it or missed it. It's on Amazon, but it's on Salem and Fox nation and newsmax. And you could go to our website, manifold productions.
Charlie Welcomes the Producers of Clarence Thomas Doc 'Created Equal'
"I've said for quite a while that one of the heroes of our country. That gets almost no credit and he deserves credit but he almost demands no credit, I should say, is clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas is one of the most extraordinary people alive. He is a fighter for liberty and for the constitution and we have with us the producers and the people behind the great film that everyone should see created equal and the soon to be released book that I think everyone should check out and that is Michael pack and Mark pauletta. Welcome, Mark and Michael to the Charlie Kirk show. Thank you for having us on. Thank you, Charlie. So Michael, tell us first about the movie or actually first tell us about the book that then inspired the movie and tell us what you have learned from the exceptional clarence Thomas. Well, so the way the movie came about, it's been about two years since it was released. It is that a bunch of people who were friends of justice Thomas a new me were concerned about how people who hated him in the left were telling a story. So I had not known that much about clarence Thomas at the time, but after meeting him, you quickly realized that what you said in your intro, trolley, that he's a great American with a great story. And I really wanted to tell it. So after working on the film for a while, I came to the conclusion he should tell the story himself in his own words that he and Jenny should be the only interviews. And I interviewed them for over 30 hours over multiple months. You know, more a longer interview more access than any Supreme Court Justice has ever given anyone in the history of the Supreme Court. And we worked on the film, and it was a two hour film. It was released for us to movie theaters till COVID knocked it out, and then it was nationally broadcast on PBS. Now has been streaming. And it's still streaming for those who want to see it or
Book About Clarence Thomas Is a Window Into the Mind of a Great Man
"We're waiting for a slew of Supreme Court decisions on a whole bunch of really important topics. In fact, there was one that came out today on religious freedom and I'll talk more about it tomorrow. But no decisions yet for abortion, no decision yet on guns. Those should all be coming in the next couple of weeks. But as we're in this kind of atmosphere of suspense, I see a very interesting article. It's an excerpt from a forthcoming book on clarence Thomas. And the book is called created equal. It's edited by Michael pack and Mark pillar. And it includes detailed interviews with Thomas, which are very kind of, well, they give you a window into Thomas's soul. And it's just very interesting to see this justice and how he's how he responds to things. And the excerpt that I've been reading goes back to his confirmation process, a very traumatic, the whole process was awful, it says Thomas. But then they ask him, was this like the worst thing that has ever happened to you? And he goes, and this is very Thomas Y, you know, I can actually tell this from knowing Thomas a little bit. I've had worse things in life. I've been blessed because I've seen worse. It was a lot worse to be hungry and not know when you are going to eat or to be cold and not know when you're going to be warm again. These people who are doing the attacking had never known anything like that. So talk about guy who was raised in rural poverty in pinpoint, Georgia, and this black guy is the target of the left rage and attack. And then he talks about the hearings, and he says, this is not an information exchange. People say things, there could be insults, slights, and nu endos, they could be an effort to unnerve you to rattle you to get you to look bad. There's a lot of this gotcha to get you to say something that leads to something else. His point is that the hearings are a kind of an orchestrated sort of trap, particularly for Republican nominees.
Clarence Thomas Was Right About New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
"Clarence Thomas is right That that decision was a disaster You can have free speech But the problem with giving and allowing entities or individuals since 1965 anyway To pretty much say whatever they want to say Really doesn't contribute to free speech Particularly if you're in the media or you pretend to be analyzing the media it doesn't enormous damage to the First Amendment Enormous damage
Ginni Thomas' emails deepen her involvement in 2020 election
"Newly revealed email shows Supreme Court Justice clarence Thomas wife was more involved than previously known in efforts to keep Donald Trump in The White House The emails first published by The Washington Post show in the days after the AP and others called the presidential race for Joe Biden Ginny Thomas urged two Republican lawmakers in Arizona to pick their own slate of electors Arguing Biden state win was marred by fraud Thomas had also written text messages to then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows encouraging him to work to overturn Biden's win Her husband meanwhile has taken part in the high court's consideration of suits challenging the election results Democrats have called for justice Thomas to step aside from election related cases but there's no indication he intends to do so Washington
Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court
"Justice justice justice justice Clarence Clarence Clarence Clarence Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas says says says says the the the the Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court Court has has has has been been been been changed changed changed changed by by by by the the the the leak leak leak leak of of of of a a a a draft draft draft draft opinion opinion opinion opinion earlier earlier earlier earlier this this this this month month month month suggesting suggesting suggesting suggesting the the the the court court court court is is is is poised poised poised poised to to to to overturn overturn overturn overturn the the the the right right right right to to to to an an an an abortion abortion abortion abortion recognized recognized recognized recognized in in in in roe roe roe roe versus versus versus versus Wade Wade Wade Wade I'm I'm I'm I'm Ben Ben Ben Ben Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas with with with with a a a a look look look look at at at at his his his his comments comments comments comments it's it's it's it's like like like like kind kind kind kind of of of of an an an an infidelity infidelity infidelity infidelity that that that that you you you you can can can can explain explain explain explain it it it it but but but but you you you you can't can't can't can't undo undo undo undo it it it it justice justice justice justice Clarence Clarence Clarence Clarence Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas joined joined joined joined the the the the court court court court in in in in nineteen nineteen nineteen nineteen ninety ninety ninety ninety one one one one and and and and has has has has long long long long called called called called for for for for roe roe roe roe versus versus versus versus Wade Wade Wade Wade to to to to be be be be overturned overturned overturned overturned speaking speaking speaking speaking at at at at a a a a conference conference conference conference in in in in Dallas Dallas Dallas Dallas Friday Friday Friday Friday he he he he described described described described the the the the leak leak leak leak of of of of justice justice justice justice Samuel Samuel Samuel Samuel Alito's Alito's Alito's Alito's draft draft draft draft as as as as an an an an unthinkable unthinkable unthinkable unthinkable breach breach breach breach of of of of trust trust trust trust when when when when you you you you lose lose lose lose that that that that trust trust trust trust especially especially especially especially in in in in the the the the institution institution institution institution that that that that I'm I'm I'm I'm in in in in it it it it changes changes changes changes the the the the institution institution institution institution fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally fundamentally are are are are you you you you begin begin begin begin to to to to look look look look over over over over your your your your shoulder shoulder shoulder shoulder adding adding adding adding up up up up the the the the leaker leaker leaker leaker that that that that general general general general attitude attitude attitude attitude is is is is your your your your future future future future on on on on the the the the bench bench bench bench and and and you you you need need need to to to be be be concerned concerned concerned about about about that that that that that that audio audio audio Kerr Kerr Kerr to to to see see see the the the American American American enterprise enterprise enterprise institute institute institute I'm I'm I'm Ben Ben Ben Thomas Thomas Thomas
Radical Left Organizations Encourage the Targeting of SCOTUS Homes
"Yesterday we talked about the group rise up for abortion, which is really just a front for a shadowy revolutionary Communist Party group. A Maoist organization founded in the 60s by bob, avakian. Now, interestingly enough, some on the left don't like that group because they call it a cult. Which seems very apropos. Now, another group that's actually getting probably more attention because they were the ones that actually doxxed the 5 out of the 6 conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, is a group called Ruth sent us. Ruth sent us is asking activists to target Supreme Court Justices who may overturn roe V roe V wade with demonstrations at their private homes. Now, can we just state it? As a simple, clean fact here that you should not protest at private homes. You should not confront or get in their faces as Maxine water says, when people are out in public with their families, this is not appropriate. If you don't like somebody, you vote them out of office. If you don't like somebody, you can go on Twitter and say something mean and nasty to them. That's fine. And there might actually be free speech on Twitter moving forward with Elon Musk taking down. You do not, and I repeat, again, do not protest at private homes. I think it's just important to say that it's idiotic. It's stupid. If you're a conservative and you're considering protesting in front of, I don't know, justice Kagan's house because you think it's respect that she or one of her clerks were the leaker. Don't do it. Stop. It looks bad.
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Loaf of orange, Indiana, and Marian the corgis got split up in the divorce. Oh no. So now it's just Marion. Trans Vin Diesel asks, can we get chase strangio on the pod to talk about anti transpose? We'll take a look. Jamie, OA live show Mardi Gras 2022 in New Orleans. I think we've missed that. Yeah, I think we did. We could definitely do 2023. Yeah. Once we're more comfortable with large gatherings of people. Yeah. Employed again, again, so patronizing again, excellent. Thank you. Politics from a different but enlightening angle, the novel vortexes is being considered for an option in a screenplay. All right. Streetcar named deez nuts. I will never not last one. That's so good. Last month was bail fire dragons. Two C two U two B two R flying an opponent damaged by this card must discard the entire hand, ignore this effect if something. Yeah, now I also don't know that one. Two C is interesting, so it's colorless mana, or is that just how they do it now? Anyway, cool. Sounds like another cool creature that I don't know, but awesome. LT, salty Seattle driver asks that you and your friends help me to get to 1000 subscribers on YouTube so that I can make a few dollars. Okay. Inspired zombie all caught up missing 8 hours a day of Andrew whispering sweet nothings in my ear well, great work. Well, this past week you had about 8 hours a day of OA. You sure did. And take it away, Thomas. All right, Susie's sister sewed socks for soldiers, Andrew will start by reading this legal briefing backwards. This is how we summon our dark lord Lucifer. Ian says, invaginate, but also at two. Yeah, there's some good code names, references. There, and also Andrews trivia references. Hashtag and vagi gate, no ducks given this month at atomic penguin 7 on Twitter. Joseph Fiji Ono, doctor scoop little Doug and Heather, mister and misses pusher. I passed my transgender health communication thesis defense with distinction. Oh, cool. Hand woven sustainable textiles for your home and body at Kelly woven dot com. Abigail Bartlett, I wish I don't think Thomas will get this joke. Is that what's a face reference? The show isn't a president Bartlett, isn't that guy? He's the show. West wing. Crispy. Yes, isn't it? I don't know. I'm putting two together the things I won't get and the name that I think I remember. Abortion access saves lives. For a fun fantasy story, read the king's own by W Marshall now on Amazon. That thing in the attic. Sean mcgovern liberal zone guns two support root cos mitigation not ineffective gun control. I support effective gun control. Chicago live show, you bring the law talking guys, I'll bring the Al's beef dipped with peppers. Oh my God, that sounds so good. The fat Jedi eating cake and drinking emperor's brewery beer in the death star canteen. Zach bloom ignoring my PhD in constitutionally Vogue. I like that one. And constitutionally Vogue is a great one. Tell Morgan good time son. Ray, pizza school the corgi says Alito, F Amy Coney Barrett, F clarence Thomas, F Kavanaugh, F Gorsuch, F Roberts. That's a good ordering too. I like that order. That's pretty good. Good.
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"To you by wondery and there will be wild podcast. On January 6th, thousands stormed the U.S. capitol on Trump's urging. Yeah, Ginny Thomas was possibly one of them. He had tweeted, be there, will be wild. From the critically acclaimed podcast studios pineapple street and wondery comes a new documentary series called will be wild. We'll be wild, shines a light on the human stories left out of the January 6th headlines and goes deep into the lives of people who took part in the day. The people who saw it coming and the people who fear that the insurrection was just the beginning. You'll hear from former U.S. intelligence members who warned about the incredible rise of violent extremists in America, a former soldier charged with seditious conspiracy and a son who turned his father into the FBI that story is, wow, it's nuts. It's so cool. You should listen to the show. It's really good. We'll be wild is a close up look at the four year effort to bring autocracy to America and what the insurrection could mean for the future of our democracy follow will be wild wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen early on Amazon music or early and ad free by subscribing to wondery plus in the Apple podcasts or the wondery app. Canon three a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly impartially and diligently. The duties of the judicial office, take precedent over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, should not engage in behavior that is harassing abusive prejudiced or bias, and should adhere to the following standards I thought this subsection a 6 kind of hit me. A judge shook not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's discretion and control. The prohibition on public content on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties to explanations of court procedures or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education, and it is that last kind of loophole that clarence Thomas drives a truck through. The way a normal person would read that description is, yeah, you don't talk about outcomes of upcoming cases. However, if you're in front of a legal conference of practitioners, you could use a pending case, right? As a description of a certain aspects of legal procedure, so long as you're not intending to violate this rule. But what you shouldn't be doing is going to the federalist society and saying, you know, I feel real good about the fact that in our next term, we're probably going to overturn the right to abortion and clarence Thomas does that sort of stuff all the time. They're literally too many instances to list. Subsection C on disqualification, I think this is the knock down argument. A judge shall disqualify himself for herself in a proceeding, which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. That's the standard from which you need to recuse yourself. Could a reasonable person looking at the situation saying, I'm not sure you're all the way impartial here. And if the answer to that question is yes, your job is to recuse yourself. And other justices take that seriously. Elena Kagan was solicitor general, and everything that comes close to a case that passed her desk when she was arguing before the Supreme Court. She recuses herself on. Even in cases, now it's just, okay, well, that makes the 6 to two instead of 6 to three. But even in the 2013 to 2019 period where she had the potential to be a deciding vote, you recuse yourself because, yeah, you don't want a reasonable person to think you're impartiality might be questioned. And just to be clear, it goes on to state. This is in the text not the commentary, including but not limited to instances in which a, the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. There's a financial or fiduciary interest. That's not important. Or the judge or the judge's spouse or a person related to either is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Um. Tick that check box. Yeah, exactly right. And so I could continue to go on. I think I'm just going to end with, I'm going to skip over canon four, canon 5 says a judge should refrain from political activity. General prohibitions, a judge should not one act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization to make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Solicit funds pay an assessment to make a contribution to a political organization or candidate or a tender purchase a ticket for dinner at other events sponsored by political organization or candidate and a judge. And then, okay, you might be like, all right, I've navigated all of that. I've never paid to go to a Trump event and then you get C, all other political activity, a judge should not engage in any other political activity. It just couldn't be more clear. And the term in the commentary, the term political organization refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties it connection with elections for public office. Okay, I think I have demonstrated to sufficient degree that clarence Thomas has violated the canons of ethics. Now, is that a high crime or misdemeanor? And the answer is it doesn't have to be. And here's why. Article three section one says the judicial power of the United States of the constitution says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. That's the end of what the constitution says about judges, but it says they hold their office during good behavior. You combine that with article two section four, which says that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment. Now, that continues to say for and conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, but you have to put that together and say, okay, judges serve during good behavior. Judges are civil officers of the United States. Therefore, judges can be removed via impeachment for failure to demonstrate good behavior. And I want to tell you that if you're asking is this deeply steeped in our nation's history and traditions, the answer to that is, yes. Yeah. Well, I remember when we were talking about impeachment of Trump, there was often a judge that came up as the example of impeachment, right? Yeah, the very first judge to be impeached was John Pickering of the United States District Court of the district of New Hampshire, in 1803, and he was impeached for being drunk on the bench. And not only was he impeached, he was convicted by the Senate. He was removed from office on March 12th, 1804. But Andrew is being drunk a high crime. It might get you, now I'd say I felt like I don't think it even counts as being high. It's not a crime. He was not guilty of public intoxication in a criminal sense. He was a drunk. And they added the charges of mental instability to that, by the way. Not exactly the most enlightened language from 1803, but yeah, the idea was, this guy's drunk and does dumb stuff on the bench and therefore we want him out. And I want to tell you 15 times the Congress has impeached sitting article three judges, including one Supreme Court Justice, and only four were acquitted. 8 were convicted three more resigned because they were about to be convicted. That's pretty great ratio. Of success. And again, it is littered throughout the sum of these folks committed crimes, but some of them judge delahaye in 1873 also removed for being drunk. Now, you know, judge west Hughes humphreys of Tennessee was impeached in 1862 for insurrection. So the charges were refusing to hold court and waging war against the United States government..
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved the provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further that objective. That's the end of it, but like many of these ethics codes, it has a commentary section that's like, okay, man, that's a great high sounding highfalutin principle. What does that mean? And the commentary says, the canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, decisional law and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions. Not every violation of the code should lead to disciplinary action, whether it is appropriate and the degree of discipline should be determined through a reasonable application and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity and the effect of that improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Okay, so that's kind of the general principle and it says, let's read it broadly. Let's think about how often these conflicts come up. Let's think about the intent of the judge in doing so and the effect that it has. I would argue clarence Thomas is not doing the farewell by those metrics. But let's look at the specifics. So canon two says a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Then there are sub canons here. A respect for law, a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. And B, outside influence, a judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, a judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Yeah. Okay, that sounds bad. But maybe the commentary will exclude. No, no, no, but it's totally fine to have if you really have strong political beliefs. No, it's actually way worse than that. The commentary says, an appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry would conclude that the judge's honesty integrity impartiality temperament or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct, a judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept and willingly restrictions I know that grammar messed up, but except freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. So instantly. What does that mean? That means you get to be on the Supreme Court. That's super cool. You know what that means? It means you can't show up, do whatever you want. I know that if I got to be on the Supreme Court, it means I wouldn't be able to do the show anymore. It means I probably wouldn't be able to speak at the American atheist convention anymore. And you know what? That's okay. That's what comes along with being on the Supreme Court. I'm sorry, Thomas. Don't worry about it. But at least I'll be able to exert influence on your decisions on the court. There's no chance I'm going to be on the Supreme Court. But if I did, you know that that's not what that attitude. Yeah. Yeah. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend a conduct by judges that is harmful enough, although not specifically mentioned in the code. And then more on to be a judgment avoid lending the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge's judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or member of the judge's family in contracts for publication of a judge's writings a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge's office. And here's where I think that the giving over your list of clerks all of a sudden a message from your wife, you know, the wife of your judge comes through. That seems to me like using the prestige of your office to advance Jenny Thomas ability to offer an apology. So I took that as like she's just trying to make nice with people she would be friends with or associated with through clarence Thomas. Does that gain her some sort of something? I don't know. Yeah, I think saying, hey, I feel comfortable taking this back channel communication that is buying between Thomas clerk's and justice Thomas and turning it over as an outlet for my wife to issue a statement. Again, you get the sense. If you want to say that one feels like maybe that's a push. I can accept that argument. I want us to push back. I want it to be clear that the way in which as you read these canons of judicial ethics, so much of the conduct is so far over the line that you want to quibble with that one. Let's take that one off the table then. This is also the section that prohibits judges from belonging to racially restrictive country clubs and the like. So there's an entire canon C two C on membership in organizations that have discriminatory policies. And it led to this note, which I thought was interesting, which is, although canon two C relates only to membership and organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race sex religion or national origin. And again, it means those country clubs. A judge's membership in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practice prohibited by applicable law. Violates the larger cannons, two and two a and gives the appearance of impropriety. And so again, that means the more you're pussyfooting around with these white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys, these groups that have the potential to appear on like a southern poverty law center 8 group. Doesn't necessarily, but if they have practices that and again, I know it seems weird when we're talking about an African American justice on the Supreme Court. We should add that Virginia Thomas's white. I don't know that that matters. What matters is that both she and her husband give aid and comfort to white supremacist groups. How does clarence Thomas square that circle? I could begin to speculate, but I don't know that that's important to me. Those groups, I think you hear the broadness of the language that if you belong to an organization that officially has discriminatory policy, that violates the specific canon two C as far as we know clarence Thomas does not, because that would be weird. But the larger principle, if you're part of any group that engages in discriminatory behavior, that per se gives the appearance of impropriety. Of course it does, right? And you should be staying away from groups that are 1° of separation away from Stephen Miller. A judge should use better discretion than that. This shows brought to you by zip recruiter. Hey, certain people just make life so much easier. I don't know what I do without them, and this is giving me a chance to sing Andrew's praises. It gives me in the examples your co host here, and that is so true. Andrew is the most reliable person week in week out so much insight on the show. It's amazing. You need those people in your life..
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Story that broke was that Ginny Thomas was there on the day of the one 6 insurrection that started being picked up in the press. And she gave the Bill Clinton list of answers, which was, you know, I went to the watch 6 rally, but I didn't inhale any insurrection. I didn't like it, and I left, and literally she was like, well, I was cold, and I left. This insurrection left me cold. This would be worse. My biggest problem with the insurrection was an ambient temperature. You know, the restaurants and the outdoor seating, they got those gas powered heaters. Why didn't they have those at the insurrection weird? So that got out, and that led Ginnie Thomas to send an email to all of clarence Thomas's past clerks. And so again, this is an internal email list to clarence Thomas's former clerks. They get to get out of an email list or it was reported as an email list in Politico, which is to say it could be a Discord server. It could be, it could be any number of things, but it's a way of reaching out to a curated list from which derives from a direct relationship to clarence Thomas, that is, his former clerks. And she writes, I owe you all an apology. I have likely imposed on you my lifetime passions. My passions and beliefs are likely shared with the bulk of you, but certainly not all, and sometimes the smallest matters can divide loved ones for too long. Let's pledge not to not let politics divide this family and learn to speak more gently and knowingly across the divide. So that was the apology that she sent out to former clearance Thomas clerks when it got kind of bubbled back to her of like, hey, not a fantastic look that you're at the insurrection. And she wrote back and was like, yeah, okay. Sure, that was my bad. I'm so sorry about that insurrection between friends. Between friends, that's exactly right. And again, the important thing here is using a judicial resource for cleaning up that mess. And then the third category of stuff that, again, I've relegated this to an afterthought because there's sort of almost too much of this to mention. Jenny Thomas is on the board of a group called the council for national policy. The council for national policy has been advocating conservative stuff for two decades, but they went a 100% full on QAnon in this past election cycle and were behind a deliberate but non public effort to reach out and ask their members to contact if they knew certain legislators in various states to contact to support the fraudulent appointment of additional alternative slates of electors after Trump lost the 2020 election. So I would say partners in insurrection. Center for national policy, Jenny Thomas serves on that board, clarence Thomas goes and speaks before them all the time. He's been a keynote speaker. He endorses what they do. And we have, again, a list that is just too long to mention on this front. And I wanted to parse it. The reason I want to talk about groups like the council for national policy and the truly extreme groups are because I sense that there is maybe some discomfort for just being a federalist society hack. But I would tell you as we get into the specific standards. I think showing up and giving rah rah speeches for the federalist society is also a violation of the judicial canon of ethics that we're going to get to. In fact, the very next segment. But so these are the three things that I think and I'm going to persuade you by giving you the evidence in the next segment. Thomas has done that violate the judicial canons of ethics. They are one. The failure to recuse himself in obvious conflicts of interest situation where his wife is an activist on the other side. Number two, giving his wife, who was a political activist, access to court resources, and number three, giving fawning keynote speeches to those same activist groups where his wife works, who are engaged in partisan politics on one side of an issue and in an extreme way. So what about the ethics rules? And we've alluded to this before, the ethics rules exist. They apply to all federal judges. That includes the Supreme Court. The problem is, is that there's no one to enforce against the Supreme Court. But it defines what constitutes ethical or unethical conduct by a federal judge, including a Supreme Court Justice. You don't have to take my word for it at the end. Go to U.S. courts dot gov, I'll link it in the show notes. At the end of the code of conduct of United States judges, it says compliance with the code of conduct. Anyone who was an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this code subject to and the exceptions are things like part time judges and retired judges who are specially assigned and so forth. So that includes Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court Justices are officers of the federal judicial system who perform judicial functions. They perform the highest judicial functions. Thomas conduct, word performed by any sitting federal judge not on the Supreme Court, would be enough to get that judge sanctioned. Absolutely a 100%. I can prove it to you. We're going to go through those cannons right now. We begin and there's only 5, right? And Thomas is violated at least three of them. There's a catch all canon one, a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Here's how that reads..
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Passing a modest infrastructure Bill. That is sure how Joe Biden has ruined America, standing up for Ukraine and passing a modest infrastructure Bill. It was definitely disturbing, is low of an opinion as I had of clarence Thomas. It is disturbing to learn that he's married to a chain email from the 2000s come to life. You know, just the worst conservative family member that you don't even talk to is Facebook feed. You know, that level of that's surprised. That was surprising even to me. I did not know the extent of her activism until this. So I'm with you. So I'm going to share three text messages until I was doing a lot of work there. That's true. Conspiracy tinfoil hat in this, you know, just it's a crazy. And this is the evolution. So tinfoil hat here, this is now November 24th. So week after that 5 days later, I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no freaking consequences. Yes, we got it. We're evangelical Christians. We can't say the F word. The whole coup, the whole coupe. That's what it says. The whole coup and now this, we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed, many of us can't continue the GOP charade. That's what's amazing, too, is the way that they're talking to each other. Like when I talk to you, Andrew, like we're on the same page, but I don't just text you occupy Democrats talking points, Andrew, the radical right, like what a weird way to interact. Like this is just this person's brain is just rotten with these conspiracies and stuff. So the point where this is how they're talking. This is how they talk to people. Yeah, this is not public facing. This is like not meant to be. This is a text message. This was sent on January 10th. And this is, well, this was sent on January 10th. Quote, we are living through what feels like the end of America. Now, mind you. This is four days after the insurrection after the riot at the capitol after the well of the Senate was breached with a guy in goat horns and an army of Red Hat mega idiots looking to hang Mike Pence, kill Nancy Pelosi and stop the certification and peaceful transfer of power. What bothers Virginia Thomas is. We're living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP. That is. Are upset at Mike Pence for not stealing an election and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Now, wow. Those who attacked the capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT exclamation point exclamation point, amazing times. End of liberty. I can't even handle this. I can't handle it. Not handling it is an appropriate response. But Andrew, someone might say, okay, this is a Supreme Court Justice with a highly disturbed wife who has gone down the rabbit hole of a God knows what. We can't punish somebody for being married to somebody like that. Like that doesn't strike me as grounds for impeachment. That's plausible on the surface level. But I think there are two answers to that. The first is a case called Trump versus Thompson. That's Benny Thompson. This was Donald Trump's declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking to block among others the national archives from turning over records that had been declared by the Trump administration to be executive privilege, but declared by the next administration to not be executive privileged and rather trying to hide facts from the one 6 commission. Donald Trump sued to block the transmission of those records we covered it on the show. That went all the way up to the Supreme Court on the shadow docket because again, this is a request for emergency relief. And the Supreme Court 8 to one in an opinion in a not a per curium opinion, an opinion author authored and signed by Brett Kavanaugh to emphasize this. As Trump justice, as you can find, the Supreme Court said, yeah, that's an insane position that you have taken Donald Trump. Executive privilege belongs to the office and the fact that you labeled all the crimes. Oh, and also this is crimes our lawyers talked about. So don't turn them over. The fact that you labeled those executive privilege is not determinative. What is determinative is the executive branch. Because that's how this thing works. And the loan dissenting justice, clarence Thomas. The audacity. The audacity of clarence Thomas. To be the lone dissenting justice in this case, I mean, even getting into the mind of this person. Like, you're not gonna win. It's 8 to one. The only thing you are doing is signaling loud and clear, I don't want my wife's text to get out or whatever. Just go with the majority of be like, yeah, no, definitely. It doesn't do anything. This is crazy. This is signing your name on your crime, essentially. It seems to me. The reason that outrages me so much, Andrew. Is because it shows how little regard these justices can have for public opinion for anything. And it's directly related to the ability to lie, flat out lie and gaslight about roe V wade and about the history and about the law there. It's exactly related to that. The fact that clarence Thomas can sit there and be the lone descent on an obvious knock down case that even the other trumpers on the court are like, yeah, no, this is obvious. But because he's so obviously ruling to try to protect his wife in a corrupt way. The fact that he could do that and not expect to face any consequences for that is the same reason why Alito can write all that bullshit and we just have no choice. We just have to, okay, cool. You took away roe V wade on completely bullshit grounds. There's nothing we could do about it. It's the same thing. I think that's really insightful. I agree with that. So where I was going to go next is in addition to dissenting to intervene and what looks like a doomed effort to protect his wife's texts and related conspiracy theory texts from getting out to the one 6th committee. There is also clarence Thomas, handing over judicial resources to his wife, Jenny Thomas..
"clarence" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Tell you, this might have been a good one to bring back the fantastic, just because I'm not, it's not fantastic news, but I'm so glad we are finally doing this episode. This is one that it hasn't been on the whiteboard nearly as long as eminent domain was. Nothing will ever break that record. That is the Wayne Gretzky's points record of records. Cal Ripken's consecutive streak. Yes. But this is one that's in the short ish time that it's been on the whiteboard. I have wanted it more than anything, which is, as you've seen in the episode title, listeners impeach clarence Thomas. This is, wow, this is an OA that I've been waiting for, so I am fantastic that we're finally getting to it even though this is the worst and he's the worst and Ginny is the worst, but I'm glad we're finally getting this OA deep dive. Yeah, me too. Impeaching clarence Thomas, OA deep dive, here we go. Yeah, so let me stake my position up front. I'm not going to hide the ball here. I believe that the house should convene a subcommittee of the judiciary committee. Dedicated to investigating and the impeaching clarence Thomas. And I want to answer the two objections that you might have that anybody listening to that might have. And in my view, those two objections would be number one, has clarence Thomas committed crimes. Are they high crimes and misdemeanors? Does it meet the legal standard for impeaching a defense again? And number two, does it matter? Who cares right all of that? And so let's let me hit the defeatism one first, right? Here's why you should care. If you have a House committee to investigate and undertake if the evidence supports it, which I believe the publicly available evidence already supports it, the impeachment of clarence Thomas, that committee can do everything the one 6 committee is doing. It can subpoena witnesses. It can subpoena documents. We can find out all of the stuff that we do not presently know because my guess is if we know what we know, there's probably way more that we don't know. So benefit number one is obtaining additional information about what the most corrupt member of the Supreme Court is doing. Benefit number two is I would argue not just as kind of staking a legal principle, not just standing up for right and wrong. But I would argue that the two impeachments of Donald Trump did practical good. They didn't do enough good because we impeached Trump, but we didn't convict him. He's a blot on American history. The first impeachment persuaded Justin amash, right? Absolutely. Is he no longer in Congress? He's no longer in Congress. The second impeachment, 100% persuaded Adam kitzinger and Liz Cheney. And that's having a real effect right now. You can not say, oh, Liz Cheney isn't a real Republican. I mean, like, you can try and say that. They have tried to say that. That's a joke. Well, Republicans aren't real Republicans anymore. They are culture warriors for Trump. And so by that logic, she really isn't. But I see your point. Yeah, she thought I member of the Trump acolytes that all gathered together at the temple of doom. That's true. And I totally agree. I wanted to jump on in agreement with this. We talked about this with the Trump impeachments, as you brought up, get caught trying for one, don't do the work for them. That was another big argument that I made in the Trump impeachments. Don't do the work of, well, he's gonna get away with this, so let's preemptively not do the part where we try to make him not get away with it. That doesn't make sense. That's not how anything works. You know, like then you're complicit. Like if you're constantly anticipating what the other side is going to do that's basically criminal and then cowing to that, then you are part of it. And also, think historically, take some of the history's worst, you know, most egregious things are present, you know? Like, if you read that there was an impeachment drawn up because of, let's say, for example, this is definitely not true, but just for example, if you had read that like when we did the internment camps in World War II, if there had been like an impeachment committee of that, even though it failed, completely failed, they didn't get a conviction. What would you think historically would you be like, oh, well, you know, you'd be like, wow, those people took a stand. And history showed that they were right to be against this, and they did what they could, but they didn't have the support they needed. There were too many people who let this happen. You know, like, take a historical view, get caught trying, do what is morally right, and if it doesn't work out because our system sucks and we're hostage to this partisan thing where we need 66 centers or whatever it is 67, we're never going to get it. That's we can't control that. What you can with what you can control. I agree with that a 100%. I don't think could be better stated. So I won't state anything more on it. Now I'm curious, why haven't they done this? The house is pretty progressive, right? I mean, I'm surprised this hasn't already been drawn up. I think that's right, so when I talked about this subject to other progressives, I did get a kind of a pushback of okay, but really, is there and I can't high crimes and misdemeanors can mean anything and but is there really is this the kind of thing that you ought to impeach a Supreme Court Justice for? And that's what I want to devote the rest of the show the rest of this segment at least to. And that is, yes. So let's talk about the three kind of areas of conduct. Why they are attributable to clarence Thomas in sort of precisely what way. And then how that fits into the overarching legal regime. So first, what are we mad at? Now, there's a lot of times. It's a big list, but let me make sure that I'm hitting on all the things that we should be mad at because maybe I've even forgotten stuff. But I think I've got it. I think the turning point was, of course, the discovery of text messages released by the one 6th committee during that brief interval in which Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows was cooperating with the one 6th committee. And turned over 2600 text messages. And some of them were from Ginny Thomas. And all of the ones from Ginny Thomas were super disturbing. Yeah, so let's describe a few of those on November 19th. So two weeks after the election, Thomas wrote to Meadows, quote, sounds like Sydney and her team that's Sydney Powell. This is the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice who can not first name basis with Sidney Powell. And can I recognize that Cynthia Powell is a liar and lunatic. So sounds like Sydney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraught with evidence of fraud. Make a plan release the kraken and save us from the left taking America down. Jeez. That speaks for itself. That is, I am buying into the claim that the election was stolen. I want America's dumbest lawyer, well, I want somebody who is in the running in the Venn diagram intersection of America's dumbest lawyer and America's least ethical lawyer to get released to file all these lawsuits and the reason I want to do that is because the left is going to take America down if we don't..
The White House Ignores Harrassment of Supreme Court Justices
"Passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness, for many, many people across this country, about what they saw in that leaked document suck, he said. I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. There's no official government position on where people protest. The government is mom is quiet on the issue of going to justice's homes and screaming, nobody screams like left the screen. This was a question asked by Fox News channels Peter doocy. Doocy was signing a Fox News report that said pro choice activists under the moniker Ruth sent us. After the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a proponent of roe, published what are likely the home addresses of justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito Brett Kavanaugh, clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch, and chief justice John Roberts. During the briefing she also suggested conservatives were making too big of a fuss about the leak. I think what is happening here and what we think is happening here is there is an effort to distract from what the actual issue here, which is the fundamental rights, so an abortion. You know?
Leftist Journalist Threatens Killing Justice Thomas & Justice Alito
"Because here's what this journalist said about two conservative Supreme Court Justices. He writes, if you had the chance to kill clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the two oldest right wing Supreme Court judges should you do it while Biden can get his nominees to replace them confirmed. If you could kill clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito I mean, forget Twitter, isn't that a verifiable, illegal threat? You're allowed to go publicly threaten people's lives? Don't you think some unhinged maniac could see that? And try to do them harm? Is he still up, Derek? Is he still there? I mean, I would be shocked if they took him down, but maybe they will. Maybe they will.
President Biden Responds to SCOTUS Leak
"Let's go to Joe Biden, cut number 5 in The White House. Change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children. Is that legit under the way that the decisions are written? What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this mega crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history. In recent American history. Let's just unpack that. First of all, put aside the Ku Klux Klan, put aside the Nazi sympathizers, put aside the John birch society, put aside antifa, put aside the January 6 protester, the maga kraut. In reference to the Supreme Court decision by 5 justices, three of whom were nominated by president Trump, all of whom were distinguished jurists long before president Trump came down the escalator as candidate Trump. And of course, the chief justice and clarence Thomas had been on the court for a very long time in justice Alito was a George Bush appointee as well. W Bush appointee. And I'd be sure that that HW Bush, let me George W. Bush appointee. And I'm just here to he came up after Harriet Meyers with withdrawn. So it's cheap justice Roberts than justice Alito. I'm just sure to tell you, the uniter in chief, that's just not true. This is such an over the top comment that, again, it's like the Pope saying NATO is responsible for invading Russia. Maga is the most extreme. And by the way, LGBTQ children, I understand some children so identify, I also understand that no teacher in America would ever separate them and they also understand that that would fail rational basis review. It is the reddest of herrings I have ever heard. It's the stupidest thing I've actually ever heard Joe Biden say.
Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe
"Reported that the Supreme Court was poised to decide that roe versus wade was going to be overturned. Now this is an unprecedented development because Politico received a leak. Now we're used to leaks in Washington, D.C., leaks happen all the time in leakers are rarely ever held accountable unless the leakers of course are leaking on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And so what appears to be a Supreme Court Justice clerk will get into that later in this program of who we think it is. They leaked a draft of the decision composed and written by Samuel Alito by justice Alito. Now the significance of this is, is that the decision is not done yet, is that the justices meet right after they hear oral arguments, they start to draft opinions, and the final decision, the final vote will be done based on how the opinion is written. And so based on the draft that looks like Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, justice Gorsuch, justice Alito, and justice Kavanaugh, 5 of them are going to vote against the four would be briar Sotomayor Kagan and Roberts saying that roe versus wade will be overturned. Now mind you. We'll get into the technical aspect of this. Does not mean that abortion will be outlawed as much as I'd like to see that happen. That just, it's simply means that states will be able to determine their own abortion laws. It will
"clarence" Discussed on Black Tech Green Money
"What do you thing happens in the tech space for black entrepreneurs. Do you think not enough of us. Have that or do you think so. Many of us have that that maybe they're not getting recognized. Like how come not enough of us to your earlier point and this is very well no not enough of us are raising capital like the levels that you have and that others that we've mentioned do not enough of us have that or is there. Are there other issues that keep keep us from getting to the place to where we're even having the conversation at that level with an investor. I see both ways to be honest with you. And this is yeah. This is always tough for me to talk about. There's one side of it from founder founder. Right founders where we like like we all think we deserve money and that's cool went and like yes. We should be more or whatever but on the other side of me which is a scout at true ventures out of san francisco. They wanted top cease as firms. I also get a lot of inbound from founders. And what. I see a lot of time. We're not ready for primetime and not only. Are we not ready for prime time. Because we've had to fight and claw express and have that kind of screw mentality were also don't have our ears open wounds here like what we need to hear to get to the next level and i give you. I'll give you a quick sample. I was talking to a founder a few months ago and we were going back and forth over zoom a like an. I'm not the to give advice. But i do give you like. Here's what worked for clarence..
"clarence" Discussed on Black Tech Green Money
"You had this idea for this warranty business. I wonder how did you go for capital or did you go for customers. I if you for customers you know how did you get that traction. You know if you're selling warranties that means you gotta have the money to be able to put it out if i break my device right yeah. I got lucky in the early days. I had some former angel. Investors who put a little bit of money in some time and some you'll build dot. I kind of mvp and so did a gay. Had you know we. While we were going at the customers we had a little bit of money in the bank of of folks that can help us But when we got into techstars text are really turned me onto what venture was and what it is and what it can be because before techstars. I didn't know how to ray that and raise one venture dollar. I didn't understand how you play the game. I didn't understand how you pitch. I just. I had a bunch of gumption to to try to do this but i didn't notice game. There was an techstars. Where hey you have all this possess in this charisma now. Let's teach you how to actually play the game the way it's supposed to be played so you can actually get money in the bank so say we probably went for customers. Firs. i'm indian. Learn how to raise money later. Let's talk about that. Techstars program. Because clarence met here today. Let's say you are reviewing that clearances application to techstars because you successfully got into the program. If you're reviewing your application as the reviewer what is it in histories clarence application. That says you know what this guy's guy something. Then let's let him because there's thousands of people who apply to these teams accelerators and boot camps. And you got in so if you are reviewing your application from that day what was it that said you're he's somebody we want. I don't believe that had us getting don't didn't have anything to do with our application. I think us getting it had everything to do with how bold i was walking into the program Some of it was fake boldness. Because i didn't i it internally. I really didn't feel like i just. I deserved to be an. You're asking me to go back to a time before. I know what i know now but going into the program. We have people from silicon valley who have from new york. I was really really intimidated. I was i was my wife will tell you i was scared because i was while this a woman silicone valley who was at hp for all these years and has network and it was great. And i think. I just had to be bold and and you know you know. My story is well documented. Like i'm gonna just a street kid man. I come from the hood. I grew up doing all the wrong things that you possibly can do..
"clarence" Discussed on Fresh Air
"This is fresh air. I'm dave davies. In for terry gross. We're going to listen back to our interview with clarence williams. Third best known for playing link hayes. One of three hippie delinquent turned undercover cops in the abc series. The mod squad williams died june fourth at the age of eighty one. The cause was colon. Cancer williams got his start on broadway but his big break was being cast on the mod squad which ran from nineteen sixty eight to nineteen seventy-three. It was one of the. I chose to focus on the counterculture generation and one of the first to feature an interracial cast in the nineteen eighties. Clarence williams became known for specializing in quirky sometimes brutal characters. He played a killer and fifty two pickup and abusive father and prince's film purple rain and a heroin addict in sugar hill. He also had comedic roles. In dave chapelle 's film half baked and in keenen ivory weigh ins blaxploitation parody. I'm going to get you sokha. Andy had guest appearances in nearly forty tv series including hill street blues and empire when terry spoke to him in nineteen ninety five he was in the comic horror film tales from the hood about three young dealers looking for a lost drug shipment. At an address that turns out to be a funeral. Home the mortician. Who seems to come from the world of the dead is played by clarence williams. He opens up a series of coffins and terrifies the dealers with supernatural stories behind the death of each of the corpses. How this is all. I'm.
"clarence" Discussed on Problematic Premium Feed
"That's not all that remarkable that a liberal jurist would do that. I mean that's part of the training, but was more interesting. Is that of Thomas? Did it and it got very little attention. But you're right. It doesn't have much staying power I do think it's beginning to change. I noticed this You know right around the time my book came out. There was you know I I I think because of both the essential of Neal gorsuch in and cavenaugh a cavanaugh you know. Thomas really was perceived. To be to solidify his hold particularly since he's the most senior justice with that means in any given case where John Roberts, the chief justice is not is on the opposite side. It means that Thomas gets to decide. Who Signs the opinion so for instance in the in the LGBT case that we? Just had. A Thomas would get to decide who writes the dissenting opinion, same thing with the Daca case that we just had so you know he's really beginning to come into his implant, so we're beginning to see more and more articles that talk about Clarence, Thomas is Constitution Clarence Thomas Court. But. Still I think there's just this very stubborn. A. Suspicion and skepticism about him. and I think it has made. It, it's made it hard for him. His voice to be heard clearly, you know that was one of the reasons I wrote. This book was to try to get people to realize you know ironically once you begin to see the depth of his thought. Then it becomes truly scary ad frightening. Some of his ideas are the irony of dismissing him thinking he's just an intellectual lightweight is that you don't really have to grapple with? Just how far reaching? Some of his decisions are just to give you one example so not only is Thomas a big critic of affirmative action. He's also critic of integration and people don't realize this, but Clarence. Thomas is firmly of the belief, and this is where the black nationalism comes in That integration was pretty terrible experiment that failed, and it failed for good reason, and that black people would do better to build up their own communities and to separate from white communities. This is there's no other Supreme Court Justice I. Mean some of them may believe this, but nobody would ever say it. He says it, but also what I think is interesting about him is not that he might think vet. Integration is bad or whatever, but getting other people will think it, but he has a at least professed pro black reason for yes, which I think, antunes appropriate reason that on honesty, black nationalist. Think, and and there was a math I'm glad. The author has a podcast called revisionist history, and he has an episode where he talks about and and I have some overlap in my thought with that, but not quite where Clarence Thomas Takes it, but reckon glad will talks about in a revisionist history and in the way you think about the way you think about history accepted truisms might be wrong, and he has episode about integration of Brown versus board that really overlaps a lot with a lot with Some of the quotes on affirmative action integration the from Clarence Thomas. Framing it in in a pro black way, a lot of people like that episode. Those you know people I think we were surprised how much they would like Clarence Thomas in the black community. But because of that are in front of his name the Republican..
"clarence" Discussed on Champagne Sharks
"We can hear the rest at the La Times liberals I think they're immune to arm racism or yeah, being called. Yeah, no, and and I it goes far beyond all this, so you know one of the things I'm struck by predicting the. The last I. Don't know how period you know a lot of liberal say we have to hear black voices, black voices, and nobody's very interested in hearing from Clarence Thomas. Now I will say you know just because you wanna hear from black voices. It doesn't mean you have to hear every block voice, but he does happen to be the most powerful black person in the United States today. And so I've oftentimes gotten the question. Why would you read a book about Clarence Thomas? Would significance is he and I? It's an odd question to me because nobody would ever say. Would you write a book about Neal Gorsuch? Or why would you write a book about John Roberts or some other Supreme Court justice? They only say about Clarence Thomas. and. Yeah it's. It's striking to me. When when would it ever be? When would you ever question the need for a biography or a legal analysis of a Supreme Court justice who I might add rights more opinions than any other justice in any given year number one has now written over seven hundred opinions number two number three. Has Been consistently one of the pacesetters of throwing down doctrines that initially people bridal at and then come to accept as true so he was the very first person just to give an example to suggest in a Supreme Court opinion that the Second Amendment the right to bear arms was personal individual rights. Prior to that, everybody said it was kind of something for state militias, and he was the first and now that's settled you know. Barack Obama said the right to bear arms is a personal right that was Clarence Thomas who I said that on the court on the modern court said it would be interesting I noticed, is I you said reputation that he has like. Why do you take him seriously? But if you look on twitter, his his you know, but by ballot legal nurse Policy Wonks, people will quote or talk about sometimes even. Liberals will praise in one of his descendants like how great or interesting or engaging his opinion opinion was even if they disagree with, it tends to be the most talked about about your descent, but. How many times his opinion is of being the most talked-about one. It never last as far as staying in people's mind that maybe we should change our assessment of him is that it becomes an exception each time? Engaging or a noteworthy or quotable his opinion. Was Yeah in fact I, I mean I've been dealing with this for for many years. And one thing I noticed I mentioned to you before about he was discussing the black codes reconstruction, and it was a case, think about whether or not use of debt in in punishment or something like that I can't remember the specifics of the case, so he wrote this opinion and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also wrote an opinion where she talked about the black codes, and everybody's like Oh the group Baiter Ginsburg? She talks about reconstruction whatever now to be Ostra. Do that's not all that remarkable that a liberal I would do that..
"clarence" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Now, do you think it was your enemies show putting that out or your friends putting that out because they wanted to rest more? I think people just wanted to know what I was gonna do. I have no idea where this stuff comes from. I think in one of the things you have to get used to in this business. And here is that people can say things about you and for you that you have nothing to do with you Clarence. Thomas. Yep. Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas. So, you know. And he's absolutely right on that. People can say stuff about you for you all of that. And there's no there's no. Accountability. There's no accountability. I just it's just kind of the you know, the the way it is. That's how mediaworks a lot of legacy media, anyway. Which is really just sad. It's sad. I see it all the time all the time. With all of this just can't stand Clarence Thomas and to know that Clarence Thomas is sitting on this court Justice bench, after they tried every way to smear him, so racist, what they did to him too. Is well. I'm pleased as it as there. I have a story for you coming up about specifically millennial toilet paper. Some. Millennial toilet paper. Let's go ahead and kick it into Florida..
"clarence" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Didn't fully understand. What the hell's all about? Yeah. The committee fully understood what the hell it was all about you kooks on the left tried to destroy Clarence Thomas notice. He doesn't say was a bunch of white guys passing judgment on a black guy by the name of Clarence Thomas. Have you noticed that he said he voted against Clarence Thomas? Did you vote against Clarence Thomas the liberals in that committee because are a bunch of white guys who don't understand Clarence? No, no, no, no, it only applies to liberals c. It only applies to liberals. I am telling you if Martin Luther King could see this. He would be absolutely appalled and disgusted at least. That's my view. If you believe what he said. And you believe what he wrote a colorblind society? Everything's in color. Everything's in color. Go ahead. To this day. I regret I couldn't come up with a way to kind of. She deserved. You. See he was sitting there. The low IQ Joe Biden who barely got out of law school. Trying to figure out a way back then he was so ahead of the time that we white guys. How can I get are the kind of hearing she deserves because all of us white guys on the committee. We we didn't know regale we don't and I tried and I tried and I couldn't come up with an idea on how to do it. Go ahead. The courage. He showed by reaching out to us. She deserved a.