• frickineh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    5 months ago

    Weird, I appear open to pushing Clarence Thomas into the Grand Canyon. He’s such an astoundingly shitty human being that I don’t understand how he lives with himself.

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean, I get that, but there’s no amount of money that could make me do the things he’s done because I’d hate myself in a way money can’t fix. He (and the rest of the conservatives on the court) have hurt so many people and I don’t know how they aren’t even a little bothered. It’s like they’re legal robots who can’t feel empathy.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Your first mistake is thinking that people like Thomas actually feel empathy for other people that aren’t them. There’s been studies on this - wealth, especially extreme wealth, physiologically changes how your brain processes things like empathy, altruism, etc.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The US has tranferred $2 triliion to the wealthy since 1976 losing the war on drugs. Making drug addiction illegal is just a way to justify transferring another $2 trillion to the wealthy. It’s not about ending drug addiction. It’s about profit with a side dish of punishing those that they think they are better than.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not being a wealthy white hard right Christian will be illegal. The point is to make it impossible for people to live legally, so you can just push them around any way you like.

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I had some good shit typed out about addiction and booze (two posts in a row!), but then I mostly-read the article and see that he wants to get rid of a ruling which overturned a law making narcotics illegal (assuming the story didn’t just use that word).

    So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      5 months ago

      So I’m now wondering if he would hold onto that until big pharma is off the hook for their role in the opiate epidemic.

      • Get the most lower class Americans struggling for healthcare (dawn of country)
      • Have them stick to their low paying jobs because they have healthcare (Dawn of the 20th century)
      • Get them hooked on opiates a rigged FDA approved of due to the company that made it funded the studies and had them on the board
      • Make them dependent on them when they get injured by buying doctors
      • Now you have a low income addict to a drug. Job fucks him over? Arrest him for homelessness. Police terry stop him? Arrest him for drug possession. He starts questioning how it all happened, “you’re some kinda commie lib hippy, arrest him!”

      Thomas wants liberals in jail, he doesn’t care how.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        And now that he’s in prison, he can be a slave for corporate profit. Truly wonderful, the mind of a capitalist is

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Thomas said in his opinion in the case that he would like to “dispose” of a 1962 ruling that struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics, reported Newsweek.”

      Should this be interpreted literally?

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m looking at it more like the literal usage of the word “addicted”.

          Like, even if an addict legitimately quits, they still might feel addicted for many years later. Is that illegal? 🤔

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “In an appropriate case, the Court should certainly correct this error,” Thomas wrote.

    Thomas is making called shots now for rich people with private prisons. What a muppet.

    • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s 158 private prisons in the US. That’s roughly 2.5% of detention facilities in the US. People talk like the majority of prisons are privately owned but it’s actually quite rare.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        The amount of privately owned facilities isn’t a good metric. The amount housed in private prisons is that being about 8% combine the two and it gets uncomfortable.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        We’ve already had judges doing cash for prisoners, cash for kids, corruption. They don’t need all the budget to attract judges, a few prisons gets the job done.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    5 months ago

    The dude didn’t say a word for decades. Now he has a loud opinion about literally everything. I wonder what he’s thinking about my new tube socks or the lunch I had two days ago. I’m sure he’ll let me know.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    but his wealthy-donor’s “gift” addiction … wouldn’t be illegal, of course…

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Oh, there are plenty of laws that would apply to him. None of them are on the books, they’re just the laws of the life of an addict.

        Paranoia, ostracization… It’s a good start

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Many people will celebrate sugar baby Clarence’s death. Add this to the list of reasons why.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      My man has some of the best health care our government can buy, plus a legion of sponsors ready to prop him up indefinitely.

      Little reason to believe he’s going anywhere, at least not before the next GOP president can replace him with an equally pilled far right judge.