Summary

The article critically examines the political and personal dynamics of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni, particularly in light of his stance on abortion rights, and questions the impartiality and integrity of the current Supreme Court.

Abstract

The piece, titled "The Supremes Capades: Political Folly at its Finest," reflects on the historical context of Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination process in 1991. It contrasts this with his recent position on overturning abortion rights, suggesting a pattern of misogyny and power play within his personal and judicial conduct. The article raises concerns about the influence of personal beliefs and political agendas on the Supreme Court's decisions, highlighting the potential erosion of trust in the judiciary. It also criticizes the Republican anti-woman agenda and questions the role of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of unpopular minorities, such as pregnant women. The author expresses skepticism about the court's ability to remain impartial and above reproach, given the perceived political leanings of its justices. Furthermore, the article calls out Democratic leaders for their inaction in balancing the power dynamics of the court and challenges them to take decisive action.

Opinions

The author implies that Justice Clarence Thomas's attitudes towards women, as evidenced by his discussions with Anita Hill, are reflected in his current judicial stance on women's reproductive rights.
There is a suggestion that Ginni Thomas's support of her husband might be related to a desire for power or a compatibility with his dominant personality.
The article questions whether sexual issues should be regulated by the Supreme Court, hinting at the hypocrisy of allowing gun rights while potentially restricting sexual freedoms.
The author expresses concern that the Supreme Court may be acting on political whims rather than upholding fundamental values and protecting minority rights.
The piece criticizes the current state of the Supreme Court, indicating that it may no longer be the impartial arbiter envisioned by the Constitution.
There is a call to action for Democratic leaders to appoint more liberal justices to rebalance the court and to demonstrate stronger leadership in the face of Republican dominance.
The author points out the expectation for the Supreme Court to maintain a standard of integrity akin to "Caesar's wife," and suggests that the current court falls short of this ideal.

The Supremes Capades: Political Folly at its Finest

Illustration by **BSIENKART** (with permission from artist)

Do you all remember a lady named Anita Hill¹? When George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991 it was Anita Hill who stood up and told the nation that Clarence really was not SCOTUS material. He thought that women should be subject to his whims. At least Anita thought that was his attitude concerning her. She stated that Clarence was fond of discussing porn films with her and talking about his own body; it is not likely that he was referring to his biceps size. The Republicans of the day launched a smear campaign against Anita and accused her of being deranged and/or outright lying. Well, it appears she was neither.

In the last few days that same Justice Thomas announced that he could see the way to deny abortion rights to all women who live in the United States no matter the cause for pregnancy. Talk about keeping them barefoot, pregnant and living on the edge of town. All of this brings me to question what in the world was or is going on with Clarence and Ginni. Is that some kind of Dom and Sub relationship? I mean, Ginni had to know that Anita was telling the truth. So why did Ginni stay with Clarence? For power, or because she kind of liked it? One has to wonder in as much as Clarence obviously delights in denying women equal rights under the law.

It’s pretty difficult to imagine how such decisions are made rationally. I don’t know if decisions about sex can be made rationally. Do you make rational decisions concerning sex in a rational manner or does once the hormones kick in it’s off to the races, as it were? I don’t know what melts the good Justice’s butter, but he is saying that he wants to control all manner of sexual issues for other people. That appears to be pretty Dominating to me. Ginni seems to be following her master’s lead and that looks pretty submissive to me. That they both think highly of the pussy grabbing ex-prez might just speak volumes. I don’t know any of this, but I do have questions. Don’t you?

I’ve known a few bible thumping Christians in my day and something they all seem to have in common is a great desire to repress all sexual urges. Christian universities such as Bob Jones, Liberty University, and Pensacola, all demand strict separation of the sexes. Different elevators, different parking lots for student cars, and definite censorship of speech and even music. All this censorship seems to result in a fascination with all things sexual. Perhaps even bordering on fixation. That fixation extends to the highest ranks of Christianity. Remember Jim and Tammy Faye?

When I hear people trying to control sexual issues for other people I have to ask myself why. Is Moscow Mitch so repressed that he can not bear to consider that people like to have sex in the way that melts their very own butter? Is that something that the Supreme Court of the United States needs to be concerned with? Guns are alright and everyone has the right to carry them around in their pockets, but to have sexual preference not ordained by the “Thought Police” is wrong? Really? What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

Do you know that the Supreme Court has three major roles in government? “The first is as the highest court in the land; it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Second, it ensures that each branch of government recognizes its limits. Third, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans.”² I don’t know how you think about these things, but I kind of think that pregnant women represent an unpopular minority. Wouldn’t that indicate that the Supreme Court of the United States would pretty much have to ensure that their fundamental rights are protected? Just because a perceived majority has changed their view on abortion does not mean that the court can become political at its whim, does it?

Please do not misunderstand here. I don’t care if Clarence and Ginni get off on playing dominant/submissive games. I don’t care if Brett likes beer and drinks himself into a state where he can’t remember where he was or what he was doing last night. I don’t care if Amy considers herself as a stand-in for “The Secretary”. I don’t even care if Sam thinks he has a soapbox to declare his religious beliefs. I don’t even care if my musings are out of line and completely inaccurate. Caesar’s wife must be above reproach. With all that said, I do care that any Justice allows his or her private thoughts and beliefs to interfere with their job. That job is defined by the role of the Supreme Court. How can the court which has the final say on the constitutionality of any law be correct for 50 years and suddenly be incorrect over the same judgment?

The problem here is not about if the court is right or not. The problem is about whether any of us can actually trust the court at this time? It certainly seems obvious that the court is perilously close to being political. The constitution relied on the Justices of the Supreme Court to be, like Caesar’s wife, above reproach. It certainly is reproachable at this moment in history. But then what else should we expect? The Creature from the Dark Lagoon has corrupted anything and everything he has ever touched.

Again I have to raise an issue with my Democratic friends. Are you boys really up to being in power? If you are then why is there still only nine Justices on the Court? Do you fellas have the wherewithal to appoint an equal number of Liberal Justices so that the power dynamic in the Court can once again be in balance or are you going to continue to allow Moscow Mitch to rule over you? The midterms are coming up here pretty quick like a bunny, so if you boys are going to do something you’d best get off your lazy butts and show the nation you have a pair. Why can’t you people understand that the appeal that The Creature has is that he is decisive. He leads. Even when he’s wrong he leads. People don’t know what it takes to govern the country, they expect you to know and to get that job done. Do you blame them? If all you have is excuses for why you let the likes of Master Thomas and The Secretary rule over you, then you deserve to lose the election and all the freedoms you claim to defend. If y’all are up to it, then I reckon it’s a little past time for you to get to defending. I think I speak for a wide swath of redneck folks in the country when I say, yo dudes, how about you get ‘er done? Waddaya say?

References

1. Tikkanen, A., & Smentkowski, B. P. (2022, June 24). Anita Hill | Biography & Facts | Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anita-Hill

2. About the Supreme Court | United States Courts. (n.d.). United States Courts |. Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about