• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

When we show up, we win.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

The lights are all blinking red.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Our messy unity will be our strength.

Let there be snark.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Bill of Obligations

Bill of Obligations

by DougJ|  April 13, 20099:11 pm| 46 Comments

This post is in: Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Everyone is talking about this of course:

“Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Most of the discussion has focussed on the idea of having too many right, but my question is this: how fucking scary is the idea of a government-authored Bill of Obligations? If that doesn’t sound like Stalin or Pol Pot or Orwell, I don’t know what does.

Update. In the comments, T-Rex writes:

Now I am absolutely thrilled to go see him speak at the U of M Law School the day after tomorrow.

It would be interesting to see if someone can get Thomas to comment on the Coleman-Franken race at this event. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Thomas express the opinion that Coleman deserves to win.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Monday Night Rambling Open Thread
Next Post: The most trusted name in news »

Reader Interactions

46Comments

  1. 1.

    Conrads Ghost

    April 13, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    And this brainiac is a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, whining like a drunk on a barstool. Nice work, if you can get it.

  2. 2.

    ice9

    April 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Let’s not swirl up Orwell with Pol Pot and Stalin. Maybe "Orwell’s" and Pol Pot’s, etc.

    ice

  3. 3.

    r€nato

    April 13, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Bill of Obligations? I think that’s called ‘federal laws’.

    Sometimes I have to remind myself that it wasn’t George W. who put Thomas on the court, it was his father. Thomas would have been a perfect W admin appointee: completely incompetent and a giant FUCK YOU to Thurgood Marshall’s legacy.

  4. 4.

    Ed Marshall

    April 13, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    This would be why Clarence Thomas hasn’t taken a question from the bench in three years. Part of him knows better than to acknowledge the demons running around inside his skull.

  5. 5.

    Ash

    April 13, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    And he’s only 60 years old, dammit.

  6. 6.

    Incertus

    April 13, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    I actually talked about another part of it, namely his love for being marched into a classroom with a crucifix and a daily pledge of allegiance. I had a slightly different take on that experience, as you might expect.

  7. 7.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    April 13, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    What about the Bill of Sale, when Phil Gramm sold America to the financial and insurance industries? Can’t we talk about that one, Justice Thomas?

  8. 8.

    Evolved Deep Southerner

    April 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    While Thomas has never historically granted many interviews, every one I can remember seeing, reading or hearing has been really unsettling. Not only in what he says – by his own account, his psychopath granddad did a real number on him – but in his mannerisms. I remember the "60 Minutes" interview when he laughed, or at least tried to fake it. Everything laughed but his eyes. Creeped me the fuck out.

  9. 9.

    anonevent

    April 13, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Supreme Court Justices should be obligated and should be held responsible for following the Constitution. Once Thomas follows that, then we’ll talk.

  10. 10.

    The Cat Who Would Be Tunch

    April 13, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Damn those liberal activist judges, referring to non-existent amendments in the Constitution and legislating from the bench! Err, wait, Thomas is conservative?

    And I used to think Scalia was the worst.

  11. 11.

    r€nato

    April 13, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    One of the very, very few times Clarence Thomas made any sense whatsoever was with regards to his dissent in Virginia v. Black, which he did not think went far enough in upholding the constitutionality of a Virginia law banning cross-burning.

    As always with conservatives, they only find compassion when they feel personally affected.

  12. 12.

    ihop

    April 13, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    i would prefer to think of it as our "bill of daily duties"

  13. 13.

    flounder

    April 13, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Weren’t these assholes whining a week ago that Democrats were making it too easy to volunteer in a government service program?

  14. 14.

    ChrisB

    April 13, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Yeah, for some reason our Founding Fathers didn’t see the need to amend our Constitution to add a Bill of Obligations or a Bill of Responsibilities. But they did see the need for a Bill of Rights. Amazing that a Supreme Court justice would care about the former but not the latter.

  15. 15.

    Tymannosourus Rex

    April 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Now I am absolutely thrilled to go see him speak at the U of M Law School the day after tomorrow. Of course, I do feel that I have a right to enjoy a properly heated auditorium… it is Minnesota after all.

  16. 16.

    Martin

    April 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Well, the comments from someone who was there suggest that it’s rather taken out of context. Thomas was referring to people that think they have extraordinary rights which government is obligated to fill (like the right to have every citizen personally inspect the President’s original birth certificate). And that’s a fair enough thing to comment on.

    On the obligation side, he was commenting on how citizens should step up more often to support each other and society at large. That too is a fair enough thing to comment on, but given that Thomas is a theocrat, much as others of his ilk, I agree that such a Bill of Obligations sounds frightening. Of course, it’s pretty clear to me that he just means the 10 Commandments and whatever Leviticus passages he finds useful.

    And you can be damned sure that if a Democrat had suggested such a thing, the wingers would be in full meltdown, but Thomas is such an easy mark, perhaps we shouldn’t jump at the bait.

  17. 17.

    John Cole

    April 13, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    Sounds like liberal fascism, if you ask me.

    Also, appeaser.

  18. 18.

    Incertus

    April 13, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    @The Cat Who Would Be Tunch: I can’t remember who said it, maybe Publius at Obsidian Wings, but he says Scalia is worse, if only because at least Thomas is consistent in his world view. Scalia decides how he wants the case to turn out and then fits his decision to match it, but Thomas is a hard-core originalist, even though that theory makes about as much sense as playing golf with featheries.

  19. 19.

    khead

    April 13, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    You know, if he’s really tired I suggest retirement from the bench and not retiring to the den to watch a movie.

  20. 20.

    J.D. Rhoades

    April 13, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    At the risk of sounding cliched, if Nancy Pelosi had said something like this, the wingnuts would be having aneurysms.

  21. 21.

    Balconespolitics

    April 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    @J.D. Rhoades: I was thinking the same. A Democrat saying the same would trigger a 72-hour bashfest on the Fox News Network, and cause another surge in gun sales nationwide.

  22. 22.

    John Doe

    April 13, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    It’s called Form 1040 — go yell at some Republicans about skirting obligations.

  23. 23.

    Incertus

    April 13, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    @Balconespolitics: Yes, but that’s because obligation to Republicans means loving Jesus and polishing Reagan’s knob gravesite while to Democrats, obligation means aborting gay-married fetuses with socialized medicine and electing a Muslim terrorist who was born in Kenya to Malcolm X to be President.

  24. 24.

    Jon H

    April 13, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    I suppose he isn’t familiar with the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Looks pretty open-ended to me!

  25. 25.

    KCinDC

    April 13, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Any comments from the people who’ve been calling Obama’s proposed volunteer corps an enslavement of citizens to the government and the equivalent of the Hitler Youth?

  26. 26.

    The Cat Who Would Be Tunch

    April 13, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    @Incertus:

    My friend in law school also regularly mocks Scalia for the very reasons you mention. While I’m no legal scholar and haven’t pored through every single one of Scalia’s legal body of work, the few that I have read indicates, to me at least, a rather schizophrenic approach to decision making.

    However, to be fair, I think the truth is that many people have a tendency to gravitate towards a position based upon emotions or ‘gut feelings’ and then attempt to justify their positions with supporting facts and arguments. To think that Supreme Court justices are immune from this is naive, IMHO.

    The most vivid example I remember of contradictory Supreme Court rulings involves the cases of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia. Basically, the Supreme Court went from declaring that the Cherokee tribe was a "denominated domestic dependent nation" (i.e. not a sovereign nation) to deciding that they were a sovereign nation within the span of a year. We’re not even talking about several years, let alone decades like we’ve got between more famous cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The same justices (under John Marshall) decided both cases.

    In a way, that’s both disturbing and strangely comforting. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t seem to have lock for specific time periods or specific groups of people. I have to remind myself of this fact whenever the idiocy from the MSM, blogs, politicians, and random commenters starts overwhelming me.

  27. 27.

    Whitey

    April 13, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    T-Rex, not only I am seeing him speak at UMN in his public event, Thomas is also teaching a class session that I’m in earlier in the day, with about 50 or so students. Suffice to say, this will probably come up.

    Also, there’s an outside chance I’ll get to meet him tomorrow or Wednesday. Anyone with any line that’s appropriate to say to him yet subtly subversive?

    Edit: I also realize that my sn is horribly inappropriate at some level. No offense intended.

  28. 28.

    Bulworth

    April 13, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    I wonder what the teabag people think about the good Justice’s dim view of "grievances"?

  29. 29.

    DougJ

    April 13, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    Edit: I also realize that my sn is horribly inappropriate at some level. No offense intended.

    You’re Michelle Obama aren’t you?

  30. 30.

    Tymannosourus Rex

    April 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    @Whitey:

    I’m assuming he’s teaching Con Law? If so, despite his bench history, that’s a pretty kick ass experience.

    Other than politely asking him to clarify what he meant by a Bill of Obligations, I’m not sure there’s a good/acceptable way to call out a sitting Justice without the Dean getting all up in your face ;).

  31. 31.

    ronathan richardson

    April 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    When was the last time that conservatism had a coherent argument? This isn’t some whimsical idea by Thomas–Republican leaders consistently claim that we are a bunch of phony victims who sit around and whine whenever we’re asked to do anything, but every time the government does call on people to do anthing outside of killing brown people, the republicans scream that the government is taking away their freedoms and constitutional rights.

  32. 32.

    HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker

    April 13, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    AFAIC Clarence Thomas is the craziest sumbitch in government.

    There is no way I am paying any attention to his nutty ideas.

  33. 33.

    Jon H

    April 13, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    @Whitey: "Also, there’s an outside chance I’ll get to meet him tomorrow or Wednesday. Anyone with any line that’s appropriate to say to him yet subtly subversive?"

    Ask him what he thinks of the Ninth Amendment.

  34. 34.

    Mark S.

    April 14, 2009 at 12:12 am

    @Jon H:

    Ask him what he thinks of the Ninth Amendment.

    I once went to a speech by Scalia and someone asked him this. Best I could tell, he didn’t think it meant anything at all.

    It’s not completely out there. Hugo Black thought the same thing.

  35. 35.

    Keith

    April 14, 2009 at 12:30 am

    If he’s so interested in a Bill of Obligations, I would suggest he contact his local elected representatives about it, just like the rest of us non-legislators.

  36. 36.

    asiangrrlMN

    April 14, 2009 at 12:52 am

    @Tymannosourus Rex: What????? He’s coming here tomorrow? What time? Oh, I can just look it up, I suppose.

    Can’t the right do anything other than whine? It’s been three months, people (not even). SUCK IT UP!

  37. 37.

    Francis

    April 14, 2009 at 1:23 am

    9th? wuss. ask him about the court’s 11th Amendment jurisprudence. (in which Scalia joins Rehnquist in finding that the whole diversity language in the 11th A. is surplusage, and states are essentially immune from citizen suits in federal court).

    [It’s late, i’m crocked, and i might have this entirely wrong. other members of the BJ Bar Assoc. are invited to correct me.]

  38. 38.

    MacsenMifune

    April 14, 2009 at 2:21 am

    Yeah I’ve heard of obligations they had them in the middle ages, now how well did that work. John are these new ads context sensitive because for some reason this post is giving me an ad about spicing up my desktop, not a complaint just kinda weird.

  39. 39.

    Nancy Irving

    April 14, 2009 at 2:38 am

    “I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said.

    Funny that, coming from someone who has a chip on his shoulder that weighs a ton. It’s hard to think of anyone in public life who has more of a sense of grievance than Clarence Thomas.

  40. 40.

    whitey

    April 14, 2009 at 4:37 am

    @ T-Rex: It’s essentially something like a federal law class; it’s a federal courts class sitting with a conflicts class and another class. It’ll be a good experience even though Thomas is crazy.

    @Jon Duly noted.

  41. 41.

    NonyNony

    April 14, 2009 at 9:01 am

    @r€nato:

    Bill of Obligations? I think that’s called ‘federal laws’.

    Pretty much. Follow the law and pay your taxes. There you go – there’s your Bill of Obligations right there.

    I’m not surprised that Thomas would say something like this – it’s a refrain I’ve been hearing from conservative baby boomers for decades now. Drives me up a wall – in most cases it’s either a variant of "you kids get off my lawn" or of "damn minorities – back in MY day they knew their place" depending on the context.

  42. 42.

    Svensker

    April 14, 2009 at 10:11 am

    Is Clarence Thomas retarded or mentally ill? Seriously, is there something wrong with him?

  43. 43.

    maya

    April 14, 2009 at 10:34 am

    Also curious, was Thomas’ preoccupation with the military: Quotes from Gen Douglas MacArthur; Watching Private Ryan. And yet, how did he personally deal with his military Obligation?
    He invoked his Right of deferment.

    Just another Repo neo-con hypocrite.

  44. 44.

    Tymannosourus Rex

    April 14, 2009 at 11:32 am

    @DougJ

    It would be interesting to see if someone can get Thomas to comment on the Coleman-Franken race at this event. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Thomas express the opinion that Coleman deserves to win.

    Well, if someone does ask, then we will know BJ readers are well represented at UMN Law.

  45. 45.

    joe from Lowell

    April 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?” asked Thomas, before launching into an passionate insistence on textualist and originalist constitutional interpretation.

  46. 46.

    Enlightened Layperson

    April 15, 2009 at 2:00 am

    Clarence Thomas is an originalist who believes that the Constitution must be interpreted to mean exactly what in meant in 1787, and an ardent advocate of states’ rights.

    I would suggest he get in a time machine and travel back to 1787. He would have the original experience, states rights would reign supreme, and he would have no rights the white man is bound to respect. What’s not to like?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - way2blue - SINALEI, SAMOA—RESPITE EDITION—FEBRUARY 2025.  (second of five) 7
Image by way2blue (7/13/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Chetan Murthy on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 14, 2025 @ 2:22am)
  • AlaskaReader on War for Ukraine Day 1,235: A Brief Sunday Night Update (Jul 14, 2025 @ 2:19am)
  • Chetan Murthy on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 14, 2025 @ 2:19am)
  • danielx on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 14, 2025 @ 2:18am)
  • Craig on Medium Cool – Navel Gazing! (Jul 14, 2025 @ 2:16am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!