I don’t understand Clarence Thomas

OK, leaving aside the obvious irony of a black man embracing originalism* – Clarence Thomas has created for himself a glaring contradiction in his opinion on the California law forbidding sales of violent video games to minors. But first, you have to remember that he’s adamantly Right to Birth.

Thomas opined in the Brown video game case that the founders clearly believed that children have no first amendment rights and that parents had complete authority over their children and the ability to make all decisions for them. His opinion goes on to glorify the absolute authority of Puritan parents and notes approvingly that, in colonial Massachusetts, child “committed a capital offense if he disobeyed ‘the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother.’ ”

So, if it’s ok to kill your child, and according to Thomas, an embryo is a child, why isn’t abortion ok?

*Originalism: The belief that you can read the minds of dead people.

One Response to “I don’t understand Clarence Thomas”

  1. Ethel Seid Says:

    You should have been a lawyer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: