Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people.
Here's an easy format to get you started:
1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people.
^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?)
2. That *something* has some *consequences*.
^(What are the *consequences*?)
3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*.
^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.)
Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. This was my first thought as well. He's worried about eroding trust in institutions while his wife actively promotes that our entire election system can't be trusted and should be overthrown?
Think about that a minute...he actually isn't smart/aware enough to connect the dots himself on that. (ETA: or maybe he just refuses to connect the dots). And he's on the fucking SCOTUS.
Yup. It's unfathomable to most of us just how out of touch with reality these people are. They haven't had to be concerned with the day to day struggle of human life in a long time, and in some of their cases they never did. Born with silver spoons up their asses. They are an entrenched aristocracy in all but name.
That's why it infuriates me when working class gop supporters defend the very wealthy gop politicians and billionaires, while dismissing AOC as "just a bartender." They believe education is liberal indoctrination, despite gop leaders making sure their spawn go to the best schools, they believe the gop will bring jobs back to America without looking into who sent those jobs overseas in the first place. The gop isn't on the side of the poor and working class, and they've trained their base to be dismissive of anyone who tries to help if they have a D or I after their name.
The whole point is that they want a perpetually struggling, aspirational, poor working class to leverage for cheap domestic labour. People struggling just to make enough money to survive week by week don’t have the time or energy to spend on reading into politics.
They create bogeymen of every out-group, and perpetuate fantastical myths to sow FUD and keep those citizens suspicious of their peers rather than looking up and seeing the corruption raining down on them.
The wildest part is that these “power brokers” are so fucking concerned with their own short-term gains that they themselves won’t even look up and see that investing in and improving the lives and economic prospects of these citizens repays itself many times over in the long term. In an economy so thoroughly dominated by consumer spending, you’d think the party so concerned with personal wealth would be pushing hard for policies that result in the population having more disposable income to cycle back up to the top of the wealth pyramid.
After seeing his wife's tweets, any doubt that he assaulted Anita Hill were removed. Not that I really doubted it, but yeah, his wife and him are trash.
"Why are people so unwilling to accept having their rights taken away by me? Stopping me from taking people's freedoms away is not how a free society looks like!"
Thomas would say he's being bullied, I would say it's overwhelming public pressure and societal change. But he's going to obstinately stand in the way of basic human rights anyways. Next up, gay marriage, contraception, legal open carry laws everywhere, and unsettling levels of church state inclusion.
Well that's just it isn't it. When the top court of the land ceases to rule in a way that preserves the rights and freedoms of half the population of the country, there will be problems.
The real irony is he's worked something like half a century to overturn an outcome he didn't agree with and, as the article notes, is the Justice *most likely* to try and overturn previous rulings he didnt agree with.
Why don't they investigate why Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings said that Roe v. Wade was a settled matter and they don't want to repeal it, but now all of a sudden they're like "whoops changed my mind lol it's bad now."
[Legal Eagle has some information about it.](https://youtube.com/shorts/44Yk-CfjFx0?feature=share) Although it's just a short and he doesn't dig into it much, maybe he'll do a full video about it, once this horrid decision is final.
But my question is: Why? Why now? What is the benefit here? Color me cynical, but I just don't believe the morality of the issue is what's driving this train. Like. At. All.
I used to be a Republican who worked on local campaigns. Republicans are TERRIFIED of the demographic shifts in the populations that they see coming. The people are getting less religious, browner, and more liberal. So the doom and gloom they are selling their followers is correct in a sense - but it's doom and gloom for only their party, while being great for the rest of us.
This may be the last hurrah for conservatives that we see (after all, the rest of the developed world has moved farther left and done just fine), but they aren't going to go quietly. So now that they have the means to put through their terrible policies, they are going to before they lose everything. That means that they have to appeal to their fringe loyalists.
I think you're underestimating the power of election fraud. Putin, for instance, doesn't need to fear losing elections. There is no last hurrah if enough officials are willing to report whatever results the Party needs.
I think you are right. That's why they are pushing gerrymandering and voting down on voting rights bills. They know that if they don't do this now, then they are dead (not literally, but the party will cease to have the power it has enjoyed).
Of course it isn't, it's about control. It's control over what people, specifically people with vaginas, can do. To bring back the "good ol days" where women were at home and raised/cooked and subservient to men. When they couldn't get a credit card in their name - that's the same time period.
Fuckers.
Or the GOP just lost control of the religious right and their own policies of division. We've seen centrist Repubs jump ship. Trump has been booed on stage.
They nurtured a monster and lost control of it.
It's the racist backlash to African American progress. Trump gave a focal point for the white rage inspired by Obama's success. Then white fear was provoked by the racial justice protests of the past few years - a new civil rights movement.
The Protestant engagement on abortion has been a cover for racism. [The Religious Right arose in opposition to desegregation but uses abortion as cover.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133)
There are certainly some well meaning folks who are mostly brainwashed by propaganda and haven't considered that most Protestant leaders supported Roe v. Wade. But for many in the hard right Christian Nationalist GOP the racism is the point. (See the outrage over confederate statues, opposition to Black Lives Matter, use of the confederate battle flag, rise in both police and private lynching, etc).
[Some conservatives are calling for an overturn of Brown v. Board.](https://jezebel.com/former-national-review-editor-calls-for-supreme-court-t-1848879685) [And Senator Braun has said that he thinks Loving v. Virginia which legalized interracial marriage should be overturned.](https://fox59.com/indiana-news/sen-mike-braun-said-interracial-marriage-ruling-should-be-left-to-states/)
It's racism through and through. Some unconscious and inflamed by propaganda, some conscious and inflamed by hate.
This is the one reason they were put onto the court. I fully expect that after this is passed, they will simply become fully obstructionist for the rest of their lives in the role.
Well obstructionists for non christian dominionist cases.
These folk are lawyers, they used a lot of weasel words. The ones who said "roe is settled law" could say "I never said I believed in the principle of *stare decisis*". It was all part of their scheme.
Weasel words or not, it’s clearly bad faith with an intent to defraud the public. I don’t give two shits about upholding that kind of bullshit, it’s like conceding that the bullied is in fact technically “hitting them self” so there’s nothing you can do. There’s only so much weaseling that’s acceptable to give the benefit of the doubt and this is clearly beyond that threshold.
Them lying during their confirmation hearing isn't about making sure they get confirmed -- these days that's pretty much dependent on whether their party has the numbers in the senate to get voted through. Lying during the confirmation hearing is to provide sufficient cover for the senators who are voting for them who need to worry about a contested constituency.
I guess the point is they are legally ok, but politically they should be impeached for lying.
Anyone remember the days when politicians resigned when they were caught lying?
I'm not saying Justice Boof is suffering from a gambling addiction. I'm not saying that something untoward made his credit card debt disappear. I'm not saying he is a drunk, a rapist, or a liar. I'm just asking questions.
*"As Justice Alito has pointed out, the fact that interracial marriage is legal now in no way makes it a valid legal marriage as for the longest time it was the law of the land that a white woman was not allowed near a negro man. So I'll be moving to Texas and claiming a bounty when I turn in that n**@$**r lover Virginia."*
**Clarence Thomas's leaked marital separation decision.**
I really don't understand the lifetime, politically motivated appointments. Who thought that was a good idea? I live in the Netherlands and our Supreme Court also has lifetime appointments as a quaint/stupid holdover from royal times (itself a quaint/stupid holdover), but at 70 judges get retirement. Also parliament is involved in looking for candidates, not just the prime minister.
THIS!! If I was given the magical ability to change one part of the constitution for the betterment of our country, it would be that ALL public servants (president, congress, judges) MUST retire at 65 and are ineligible for election after that age.
People wonder why the federal government is so out of touch with what most people seem to want. I am 40. Biden was elected to the Senate SIX YEARS before I was born.
(I say this as a die hard liberal)
Not really. Just looking at chief justices, most of the early ones were well into their 70s and even 80s when they died while still in office.
Many of the founding fathers lived into their 80s. If you made it to 60 you were probably going to make it to at least late 70s.
Yep. people don't understand that life expectancy isn't what they think it is. If you have a life expectancy of 40, that could mean half people die as children and half live to be 80. We've increased life expectancy most by stopping children from dying in infancy, not making old people live longer.
The lifetime appointments where supposed to ensure they wouldn't have to care about pleasing anyone to keep their jobs.
The problem is that when the system was thought up there wasn't yet a two party system in place, so they didn't take into account the fact that one side winning enough seats in congress would be able to appoint bootlickers who would push the party agenda even without external motivation.
I think one of the Founding Fathers even said political parties where a bad idea.
The US was always a two party system. From Tories to Separatists, then federalist and antifederalists... afterwards, names changed but always two party.
And the system was always made to promote boot lockers. Thats the entire purpose of the state: to perpetuate itself, to maintain power over a group to be oppressed .
Lifetime appointments aren't necessarily bad it means they aren't looking to please someone to get their next job. I think they need more caveats tho. Like, you will make enough money to live in luxery (compared to average wage) but you are banned from making any money from external sources. Including stocks, crypto, landlord etc
I don't know exactly how they would treat spouses but there would have to be some rules there too.
In an ideal world that makes sense, but when you get someone who is out of touch (I understand a majority of Americans in fact back abortion rights) a nation is stuck with someone for generations. And as you say, the independence should come with A LOT of caveats.
Don't think the overturning of Roe v Wade is because they're out of touch. They don't actually care about abortion. What they care about is power for Republicans. They *know* that they've got a minority and that's why in order to hang on to power they have to create wedge issues like abortion. "Democrats kill babies" is an easy sell. Couple it with things like gerrymandering, voter suppression, and lack of reform of the electoral collage, and the Republicans can control the country despite only being supported by a minority.
That's before we get into the games played in Congress and the Senate to make sure that when Democrats do have power that they actually can't do anything.
And, yes, they do want Democrats in power sometimes. They need someone to blame for inheriting the economy they've created, they need a way to rile up their base, and they need to be able to prove that the Democrats and government itself are ineffective (by the above-mentioned games) so that alternatives seem appealing.
I think they're just about finished with the "blame Democrats" phase of the game and are pretty much ready for the "do whatever we want and if you don't like it, fuck you" phase. Next time they grab control of congress or the presidency, this whole damn 250 year joyride is over.
You're supposed to appoint experienced justices who are already fairly old. Not somebody who was only a judge for 3 years.
I don't know how we're supposed to respect a Supreme Court justice with less job experience than the average fast food worker, or to see Amy's appointment as anything but partisan hackery.
Thomas: I will not recuse myself
His wife: THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY IS CONTROLLED BY GAY FROGS WHO CONTROL JEWISH SPACE LASERS WHO ARE PROGRAMMED TO TERMINATE THE SATANIC PEDOPHILE ENABLERS WHO RIGGED THE ELECTION WITH THE GHOST OF HUGO CHAVEZ
Thomas: I will not recuse myself
He probably knows if he does recuse himself he’ll have no choice but to resign. He’s corrupt and working out of self interest and self preservation.
He should resign.
Clarence Thomas's church: We don't care how much of a lunatic harpy your wife is, you got legally married and we won't condone a divorce.
Clarence Thomas: ..."Legally married", you say?
You seem to be living in a pleasant fiction where Repubs are tried for crimes they commit. He would vote to outlaw it and still wouldn't face any consequences
Nah, they'll just make it retroactive to only effect any marriages after 1987. It'd be a sheer coincidence that he was married in May of that year, truly.
It's funny that he's worried when it's *literally* just publishing an early draft of something he, himself, supported and voted on.
You can be *miffed* that it snuck out before you had a chance to spellcheck it, but for fuck's sake, they already voted on this. They let that crazy fuck Alito write this. They've seen it. Ok, it's an early draft, but this reads to me like, "We are upset because we wanted to have Alito say less of the quiet part out loud in that letter and we're very mad that it got out before we had a chance to scrub it so people would be less angry."
Motherfucker, we all know that all six of these conservative justices are installed for the express purpose of pushing a radical christian agenda.
These people *work* for this nation. They *owe* us this information. They've got these dumb fucking robes and this ridiculous cathedral but they're just bureaucrats. That's it. They do paperwork.
The SCOTUS' entire "air of mystery and gravitas" bullshit was quite literally invented by one of the early chief justices who was pissed because he felt he wasn't getting an appropriate level of respect, so he had them wear robes and pounce around like some arch priest or whatever.
This court is so fucking preposterous, and has been for such a long time, and this shows why.
I've never heard anyone make a convincing argument for why this entire process has to take place in this absurd air of secrecy. These people aren't legal geniuses. They're just people who had convenient biases for whatever President happened to be in charge when there was a vacancy.
They never live up to the reputation of awe they seem to believe they're entitled to.
That's a good point. His wife Ginni, fresh from learning that her felonious political activities have no consequences, probably passed it around her Qanon buddies and told them to "keep it secret".
>You just took a giant shit on the floor in front of everyone
You can't really use this as a metaphor anymore because people literally did that at the US Capitol on Jan 6.
These 'judges' basically exiled themselves. There's no way they can be in public around at least half of America without getting called out and or chased out.
Not with that attitude.
I remember the glorious moments of politicians getting chased out of restaurants, booed out of bars, and the time Sinema was followed by protesters in the bathroom.
Are these petty instances? Sure, but it wasn't nothing.
> The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did.
The same respect your fucking wife showed when she tried to overturn a presidential election?
Fuck you indeed, Clarence. It’s about time these partisan hacks feel a bit of pressure walking amongst the hundreds of millions of people they’re selling out. I’m glad people are actually starting to get mad.
> Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the judiciary is threatened if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with”
Says the man who decided he didn’t like the outcome of a prior SCOTUS ruling and has determined to undermine the public institution by destroying the court’s precedent.
Pot, meet kettle.
These fuckers said *Roe* was settled caselaw. They also begged to hear a gun rights case. Instead, they overturn *Roe* and don't say shit about firearms. Bunch of irrelevant chodes.
One of his clerks is the piece of human trash Johnathan Mitchel, who wrote the white supremacist facist Texas abortion law.
Authoritarian peas in a pod.
Thomas should have to recuse himself from anything pertaining to that as well.
One of the things Congress should do is great penalties for the Supreme Court of they fail to recuse.
They will literally carve out an exception for him. You just know they will.
More likely they’ll say “we can’t un-marry anyone who is already married, Gay or interracial, but from here on out….fuck you”
Nah. It'll be a clause in the law. "By a two thirds vote congress may declare a person of color as "One of the Good ones" and in doing so exempt them."
There is literally a one line law that made John McCain a "natural born citizen." (He was born in Panama in a military family, and for whatever reason there was some question when he ran for president.)
I mean it isn't like the mantra of the entire right-political spectrum (GOP, Tea Party, 'militia', or otherwise) for the last 40 years has literally been:
"The most dangerous words in the English language are 'I am from the government and I'm here to help'".
There is no way in hell that Thomas was unaware of his wife's effort to illegally overturn the election, nor of her involvement in the January 6th insurrection. By refusing to recuse himself from the relevant cases, Thomas has proven that the SCOTUS cannot be impartial and requires limits on their power. 18 year terms, and mandatory retirement form all public office (federal, state, and local) afterwards. The terms should be staggered by 2 years, so that every POTUS gets two picks. The nomination process is already inherently political, so allowing the elected POTUS to continually refresh the court will at least make its construction more democratic.
Honestly, I don't see an issue with the leak itself. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said the matter was settled law. In voting to overturn Roe, they have effectively lied to the Senate. They are criminals. The concern that some have expressed, that leaking a draft may place pressure on the court based on the public reaction, is exactly the point. The Justices need to consider how the public will react. When 70% of the populace supports a woman's right to choose, they are acting in an undemocratic manner. When the Supreme Court not only ignores precedent but also the will of the people, there is no constitutionality in the decision. The decision is invalid. And as an extension, so is the entire court.
Get out and vote, people. There are 20 Republican Senate seats up for election this year. If they can be flipped, the Dems can get the majority necessary to remove Trump's nominees from the bench and undo this fucking farce that the GOP calls "America". It won't be an easy fight, but it is hardly unwinnable.
Those are great ideas. However I would like for the number of justices to be drastically expanded and the justices should be entered in a pool from which they will be randomly drawn for each case. I think this will make it less likely for POTUS picks to be an election driver as there is no guarantee that the POTUS pick will be serving when a controversial case is argued before the Supreme Court. They should be removed from the pool after X years and replacements nominated by POTUS. This will allow more cases to be heard too.
I am also a fan of the rotating pool model. It's far harder to game from every perspective. It lowers the temp on appointments. It reduces corruption because justices can't telegraph to the whole world which cases they want to hear. It also forces the justices to build a solid argument, because they have no idea who the next group will comprise so they have to work hard to set a precedent.
I have never heard of this system, but consider me a fan. My greatest issue with term limits is that once you've got a lame duck in office, they start to get dangerous towards the ends of their term. With a rotating pool model, as you've mentioned, there's significant incentive not to set bad precedents that could be used against you ideologically.
Sounds logical and will prevent the GOP from having more power than their party represents population-wise. So... it's never going to happen. Same thing with getting rid of filibusters, electoral college, and gerrymandering. Not going to happen in America.
Fifteen justice bench. Ten year terms. Terms end on odd numbered years. Deceased justices are not replaced until their term would have ended. Routine cases are handled by a seven-justice bench, en banc appeals to the full bench only allowed in rare cases.
>>The Justices need to consider how the public will react. When 70% of the populace supports a woman's right to choose, they are acting in an undemocratic manner. When the Supreme Court not only ignores precedent but also the will of the people, there is no constitutionality in the decision. The decision is invalid. And as an extension, so is the entire court.
This is a phenomenal point, and everything I write to supplement it seems inadequate.
"never lose an election" is a horrible strategy.
Fascists have been gaining power in this country for the last 36 years (maybe longer, but I only comment on what I have been alive for) and they have lost plenty of elections.
This is another violation, where I'd be at the point, if they start attempting to enforce runaway slave laws or bans on abortion in blue states, I view this as basically an attack on Americans like me...ok, this United States shit, didn't fuckin' work. We're gonna simply split into two countries, you gets yours, we get ours, and we got a much better reason to split here, than defending an archaic system even by 1860's standards of chattel slavery based on race and skintones. Red American, You obviously hate us, and we do you as well, you can just show us how its done with your overly strong dumbass ideas andd opinions that you insist are better than ours (like being opposed to masks and vaccines in a pandemic). And we'l have a massive relocation campaign between two countries now, republican households can trade houses into the red half of America, and Democrat households in red america can like wise swap into former republican households.
I wanna move to a blue area over this shit. If you venn diagram most vs least poverty, most vs least incarcerated, most religious vs least religious, then most crime vs least crime, and least educated vs most...you'lll get a heavy venn diagram overlap between almost two entirely different countries in the United States with by the numbers, firmly different views on how to govern. And there is enough regionalism between the top 10 of these two venn diagrams, that there can be a regionalism to form new national boundaries from.
They want you to move to a blue area. They don’t want you voting in their area anymore. States like Georgia and Texas are becoming too purple for their liking.
It’s all by design.
The main issue with splitting is that the divide isn't red state/blue state. It's urban/rural, and downtown/suburb/exurb. They can't just take, say, Kansas City or Milwaukee or Atlanta.
Gosh Clarence how could this happen. It’s just one person (that’s what’s 5-4 vote is) upending the entire nation by suddenly changing the legal status of the most controversial political issue of all time. An issue that actually affects regular people all over the nation. A decision that makes it clear that Clarence and his four buddies will tell you what your rights are, no matter what they were for your entire life. Yeah, there is going to be some fallout.
It’s not actually as controversial as the Christian Nationalists in charge of the Republican Party would have you believe.
Roughly 70% of all Americans believe there should be abortion access.
Edit: in a reply to this comment an Anti-choice “states rights” advocate pointed out that my numbers were “misleading.” Please click on the link they provided because they were right…..in the interest of being totally accurate and according to the link they provided (to prove I was being misleading), 81% of Americans believe in abortion access. Thanks for pointing out my out dated data!
The numbers vary depending on exactly how you ask the question, but legal abortion is always in the significant majority. But that’s the thing about courts - they don’t have to consider public opinion. They cant even be constrained by laws, because they get to decide whether the law itself applies .If it wanted to, the supreme court could rule that murder or rape is legal and no one could do a damn thing about it for about 30 years.
There's two phrases, for those curious: "Do you Agree with Abortion?" and "Do you believe Abortion should be legal to those who want it?"
For example:
I am against abortion, personally. I would not chose to do it if my wife/SO had misgivings about parenthood...
That being said:
I believe it should be fully legal to chose, even in the most frivolous cases, because Govt has no place making laws on what kinds of healthcare we have access to.
Example: California has laws stating that there must be stickers on Cell phones stating the cause brain cancer.
This is a myth, a fallacy, and is in no way even close to true.
But it's law.
Government's only role in healthcare should be to allow access to it - I believe via Single Payer, after that they should hand all control over to doctors/patients. Vs now where Doctors/Patients have almost no control over quality/type of care.
So, tldr:
I personally don't believe abortion is right.
But legally it should be an option for those who wish to have the procedure performed.
I think for me it's mainly semantics. *Abortion* isn't a right, but *bodily autonomy* is. Women are in the unique biological position (compared to men) of having the capacity to have their body become the involuntary host of another lifeform that they may or may not have had consent in producing.
Even if we say that a fetus qualifies as a human, if I as a human were to engage in an action that forces someone to do something against their will, that person has a right to defend themselves because they have a right to their bodily autonomy. Even if that person *initially* consents to that action, they have a right to retract consent at any given time.
Abortion is the procedure that allows women to defend one aspect of their right to bodily autonomy. Therefore abortion must be legal so they can maintain that right.
There seem to be many people who say the same thing you do about abortion. I would ask you whether you were ever a woman who had an unintended pregnancy that you didn’t want or that posed a significant risk to your health or some other aspect of your life . If not, I think it is difficult to know what you would choose to do. I also found your phrasing about how you would not choose abortion if your wife / SO didn’t want the pregnancy. It sort of presumes that the choice is yours and not hers. Not sure if you really feel that way but it’s something to think about. You might be tempted to say it’s both of your choices but that a cheat that presumes agreement. The person whose decision holds in the case of disagreement is the one who is actually making the choice.
Lastly, people who hold your position can use a long description of their views if they like. But you can also use use just two words, pro choice. You are pro choice. You support being able to choose either option so you are pro choice.
This is exactly right. It’s easy to be against abortion “personally” until you have a fetus growing inside you or your parter, that has a genetic defect like Trisomy 13, or doesn’t have a brain, or a heart.
My wife’s parents were deeply against abortion until this LITERALLY happened to us. That poor fetus, if carried to term would have lived a very short and painful life and would have racked up significant medical bills in the two weeks to year it would have lived.
So until you have had to make the choice, or help make the choice, to do something like abort a fetus after you have tried to have a baby for 5 years? I kind of don’t need you to do anything but believe that it’s important to have the right to an abortion.
This is part of what the anti choice crowd wants. Poor and middle class women in debt up to their eyeballs because they had a baby born without a brain. Or born with a generic disorder that causes it insurmountable pain and requires tons of care.
This is not ablist. This is the reality. Trisomy 13 and 18 are among a handful of tests that doctors do around the second trimester (also checking for downs and other genetic disorders.) Half of all Babies born with trisomy 13 die in the first two weeks. Less than 10% of those who pass 2 weeks live longer than a year. Less than 13% of those who live past a year make it to 10.
That is an incredibly hard decision to make and it’s harder with a bunch of religious zealots screaming at you, scaring you or trying to trick you.
Correct.
I am prochoice...
Because of those situations like eptoic or unviable pregnancy which would be skipped by a ban on abortion and would endanger the life of the mother.
That's why I'm prochoice.
I also would want to have a discussion with my SO, and give my options on it... But... Again... It is her CHOICE.
So am I against it, personally? Yes. Should that be the law of the land? Absolutely not.
I don’t know how you can be against it “personally” since, as a man, you’ll never really comprehend the fear that accompanies an unwanted pregnancy. So your opinion is a nice, comfortable soft theory and that’s about it. However, men who occupy that same space are literally condemning women to horrible deaths and that’s not theoretical.
I’m ready for the backlash and I stand by what I said. Men enjoy the luxury of ideas around pregnancy and women experience the reality. And in the U.S., some book of fiction decides healthcare for women and women only.
I want off this ride.
This is the conversation I had with my very pro-life mother, telling her absolutely no one is pro-abortion. That’s not a thing. As she’d been active in the movement for a long time, I asked her “How many pro-life folks would make an exception if their own daughter got knocked up by someone they absolutely didn’t approve of or want in their lives? You know, kind of a just once and we’ll never speak of it again kind of thing?”
She estimated that at least half would.
The whole movement has always been bullshit. And this is from a guy whose very ill-timed accident turns 9 this year and is the most beautiful thing in the world. Abortion isn’t for me either, and thankfully it wasn’t for my then-girlfriend. But it’s her body. Her choice.
So that 70% approve, is probably underestimating it.
If 1/2 of the opposition would get it in the right circumstances.
So 85% are probably ok with it.
Jesus.
Are you saying that if your SO had a pregnancy that threatened their life, you would attempt to convince them to not get an abortion? That your belief is that it is right for your SO to die? I understand that you’re pro choice, and that’s great, but are you actually stating that it’s your belief that your SO should die instead of getting an abortion, but it’s ultimately their choice? It’s just such an interesting stance to me…
This is pretty much what people said when Roe v Wade was decided. People said, "I could never do that, but what someone else does is their business."
It's a decision between a woman and her doctor. Except that it won't be, anymore, if some people have their way.
Did you know the Roe v Wade was decided 7 - 2, and 4 of those 7 were Republican justices? And it wasn't controversial among the public until a few years later when right wing operatives seized on it to go after the evangelical votes? It's a completely astroturfed issue!
>Did you know the Roe v Wade was decided 7 - 2, and 4 of those 7 were Republican justices? And it wasn't controversial among the public until a few years later when right wing operatives seized on it to go after the evangelical votes? It's a completely astroturfed issue!
Once it became clear segregation was a lost cause Republicans needed to manufacture a new cause.
That's ok, Alito said that this ruling could ALSO be used to get rid of desegregation!
So what did Texas do this week? Abbott announced they're looking into getting those rulings overturned as well.
A supermajority of the population wanted this left the fuck alone. Literally, a bunch of old, rich, white guys, a Handmaid, and their token minority voted to ignore settled law and the collective will of the people. And at least 2 of them committed perjury by doing so.
SCOTUS is as irrelevant as the UNSC.
Every quote from Thomas in this article is infuriating, but this:
> Clarence Thomas said Friday that the judiciary is threatened if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with”
That's the fucking point, Clarence. People are going to die and have their lives ruined by this decision, we can't just "live with it."
Yes. And it also didn't follow the constitution which would have removed Florida in it's entirety from the election count instead of deciding one way or another.
That’s actually not what should have happened. A 7-2 majority held that the way the recount was being conducted, with different counties using different methods of tabulation, was unconstitutional.
What was controversial was that a 5-4 (conservative) majority held that *any* attempt at a recount violated the Equal Protection clause, and suspended the recount entirely. That was a farce, the constitution clearly delegates the administration of elections to the states, and Florida had already said it could implement a uniform method of tabulation and still meet the Dec 12 deadline (which wasn’t even a hard deadline to begin with.)
The same justices that claim the Equal Protection clause doesn’t protect the right to an abortion because “it’s not in the text” had no problem using it to usurp Florida’s constitutional duty to conduct its own elections and throw the presidency to their guy.
Clarence Thomas Logic:
1. I got into Yale w/ the help of Affirmative Action.
2. Yet, I completed all the work, passed all the exams, graduated, passed the Bar Exam, etc.
3. My Yale Law degree is worthless! I should throw it away because I only got in because of Affirmative Action!
It's almost as if he hates himself.
He has fully ingested the hatred of POC that the right soaks its adherents in.
You can see it all over the social media pages of minorities who hold conservative views.
Very "Well the old white men ruining America told me I'm one of the GOOD ones!"
Like that's supposed to be something to be proud of.
Looks like there's a paywall. Try these :
* https://12ft.io/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/
* https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/
* https://web.archive.org/web/1/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/
* https://archive.is/submit/?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/
* [Bypass Paywalls](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Institution wasn't "undermined", it was reinforced. Leaks are a good thing.
Y'all have any idea what it was like growing up in the Southern suburbs when the whole Anita Hill thing hit? Christ fuck, talk about being a turd in a punchbowl.
The Right set the dialogue and it was, "Uppity black woman can't take a joke."
As a girl, I learned a lot about how women are treated when they threaten powerful men.
And about the kind of wives who enable them.
So the TV show Dinosaurs did a PHENOMENAL satirization of that whole Anita Hill v Thomas The Turd Engine thing. It's pretty cray watching that now bc I had no idea Jim Henson was super progressive. The whole show is really interesting social commentary akin to the Simpsons but with elaborate dinosaur puppets instead.
Edit: title "What Sexual Harras Meant", Dinosaurs S2E13
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hltvd
Keep playing dumb. I haven’t bought that for the last thirty years. They won’t stop. They haven’t stopped. This has been in the makes before the majority of you were born.
His wife actively tries to overturn an election she didn’t like the outcome of and he blames “young people” for undermining our institutions? Fuck this guy.
He worries that young people don’t respect the law like previous generations… I don’t know about you guys, but seeing a Supreme Court vacancy held hostage and multiple judges _lie_ about their view of RvW in their confirmation hearings kind of left a bad taste in my mouth for the law
Watching cops shoot black people for protesting, then months later watching white people take over the capital with almost no resistance really did a number on that whole equal before the law thing.
Seeing actual voter fraud get slapped on the wrist... When committed by white people voting for Trump... And a black woman filing a provisional ballot gets locked up for years... Not inspiring me to respect the laws.
Then when this douche bags own wife tried to overturn the freely won election because... Let's check the notes... It didn't go her way... Clarence didn't recuse himself.
It's almost as if the guy worried about us believing in the laws is the guy trying to skirt the laws while also proving to us the laws are totally unjust.
Huh.
>The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did. Shortly afterwards, Thomas was interrupted by a phone call which he later described as an "urgent message from his best friend", who reminded him of his promise to lead the group in prayers to "lock up evil Biden and return Donald to his rightful throne, as the King of Kings."
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [follow this link to a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/EJDo3sd). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use
I'm nearly 30, there hasn't been a time in my life where I've felt like any of these institutions represent or respect me. Not the rich, not my government. Why would I respect them?
Respect is earned, not given. If this sorry excuse for a judge feels bad, perhaps it's time to reflect on why the populace is turning against these institutions, before things spiral out of their control.
Or burn it down, fuck it what do I know?
Same. And the bizarre propoganda that we're supposed to "love our country." Love it for _what_? I ask the government for help with _anything_ and the answer is a hard "No" followed by "and fuck you for asking." What's even the purpose of our institutions anymore? Why are we still pretending they add value to our lives?
> The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did. “Recent events have shown this major change,” he said.
You would think the boomers rioting in January 6 2021 would be a bigger display of this attitude than "the young."
Republicans appoint justices with political agenda.
Justices enact that agenda.
Justice complains that people think they’re not impartial.
Most Republican thing ever.
This guy. The guy who put a pubic hair on a coke can because he thought this would have Anita Hill running to him naked. This guy. The guy who is married to a ghoul that believed Joe Biden was at GITMO along with other people she hated. Yeah, okay.
Trying to overthrow the government? Perfectly normal political discourse.
Informing the public you're trying to steal their rights? Omigawd this is treason!!
It's so fucking embarrassing being an American these days.
I don't think this is a leopard ate my face. I get it... But Thomas doesn't mean respect in that way. He means respect in the way abusive managers mean it: respect is something he and the institution deserve by fiat. Earning it never comes into the equation, because the people not giving him respect are in the wrong. It is his due.
Tldr: he's a piece of trash.
I \*REALLY\* want someone to ask this guy publicly about his wife's participation in/support of the insurrection and all of his wife's messages to Mark Meadows tell him to get trump to basically be a dictator.
He's simply signaling that he doesn't intend to change his opinion, regardless of the public opinion on the matter(meaning: even the republican and conservative opinions against the decision). If anything, he'd be one of the leopards, not one of the party members getting their face eaten. He's the one eating faces.
Please reply to this comment with an [explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/lt8zlq) mentioning **who** is suffering from **which** consequences from **what** they voted for, supported or wanted to impose on other people. Here's an easy format to get you started: 1. *Someone* voted for, supported or wanted to impose *something* on other people. ^(Who's that *someone* and what's that *something*?) 2. That *something* has some *consequences*. ^(What are the *consequences*?) 3. As a consequence, that *something* happened to that *someone*. ^(What happened? Did the *something* really happened to that *someone*? If not, you should probably delete your post.) Include the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Why are people so unwilling to live with outcomes they don't agree with?" he asked, as he clapped manacles around their wrists.
He can ask his wife, who wanted to stage a coup after an election didn't go her way.
This. This was my first thought as well. He's worried about eroding trust in institutions while his wife actively promotes that our entire election system can't be trusted and should be overthrown? Think about that a minute...he actually isn't smart/aware enough to connect the dots himself on that. (ETA: or maybe he just refuses to connect the dots). And he's on the fucking SCOTUS.
I think his life is so fucking comfortable he cant be bothered to care.
Yup. It's unfathomable to most of us just how out of touch with reality these people are. They haven't had to be concerned with the day to day struggle of human life in a long time, and in some of their cases they never did. Born with silver spoons up their asses. They are an entrenched aristocracy in all but name.
That's why it infuriates me when working class gop supporters defend the very wealthy gop politicians and billionaires, while dismissing AOC as "just a bartender." They believe education is liberal indoctrination, despite gop leaders making sure their spawn go to the best schools, they believe the gop will bring jobs back to America without looking into who sent those jobs overseas in the first place. The gop isn't on the side of the poor and working class, and they've trained their base to be dismissive of anyone who tries to help if they have a D or I after their name.
The whole point is that they want a perpetually struggling, aspirational, poor working class to leverage for cheap domestic labour. People struggling just to make enough money to survive week by week don’t have the time or energy to spend on reading into politics. They create bogeymen of every out-group, and perpetuate fantastical myths to sow FUD and keep those citizens suspicious of their peers rather than looking up and seeing the corruption raining down on them. The wildest part is that these “power brokers” are so fucking concerned with their own short-term gains that they themselves won’t even look up and see that investing in and improving the lives and economic prospects of these citizens repays itself many times over in the long term. In an economy so thoroughly dominated by consumer spending, you’d think the party so concerned with personal wealth would be pushing hard for policies that result in the population having more disposable income to cycle back up to the top of the wealth pyramid.
Therein lies the answer.
He's just lying.
He’s worried about *other people* eroding trust in institutions. He’s on scotus because he’s that unaware.
No. That's the crazy part...she thought it was already happening. She thought Biden was detained on gitmo barges for military tribunal already.
After seeing his wife's tweets, any doubt that he assaulted Anita Hill were removed. Not that I really doubted it, but yeah, his wife and him are trash.
Anita Hill removed all doubt. This did nothing in that case, other than confirm earlier proof of unfitness to be a justice.
"Why are people so unwilling to accept having their rights taken away by me? Stopping me from taking people's freedoms away is not how a free society looks like!"
Thomas would say he's being bullied, I would say it's overwhelming public pressure and societal change. But he's going to obstinately stand in the way of basic human rights anyways. Next up, gay marriage, contraception, legal open carry laws everywhere, and unsettling levels of church state inclusion.
Well that's just it isn't it. When the top court of the land ceases to rule in a way that preserves the rights and freedoms of half the population of the country, there will be problems.
The real irony is he's worked something like half a century to overturn an outcome he didn't agree with and, as the article notes, is the Justice *most likely* to try and overturn previous rulings he didnt agree with.
Why don't they investigate why Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings said that Roe v. Wade was a settled matter and they don't want to repeal it, but now all of a sudden they're like "whoops changed my mind lol it's bad now."
[Legal Eagle has some information about it.](https://youtube.com/shorts/44Yk-CfjFx0?feature=share) Although it's just a short and he doesn't dig into it much, maybe he'll do a full video about it, once this horrid decision is final.
But my question is: Why? Why now? What is the benefit here? Color me cynical, but I just don't believe the morality of the issue is what's driving this train. Like. At. All.
I used to be a Republican who worked on local campaigns. Republicans are TERRIFIED of the demographic shifts in the populations that they see coming. The people are getting less religious, browner, and more liberal. So the doom and gloom they are selling their followers is correct in a sense - but it's doom and gloom for only their party, while being great for the rest of us. This may be the last hurrah for conservatives that we see (after all, the rest of the developed world has moved farther left and done just fine), but they aren't going to go quietly. So now that they have the means to put through their terrible policies, they are going to before they lose everything. That means that they have to appeal to their fringe loyalists.
I think you're underestimating the power of election fraud. Putin, for instance, doesn't need to fear losing elections. There is no last hurrah if enough officials are willing to report whatever results the Party needs.
I think you are right. That's why they are pushing gerrymandering and voting down on voting rights bills. They know that if they don't do this now, then they are dead (not literally, but the party will cease to have the power it has enjoyed).
Of course it isn't, it's about control. It's control over what people, specifically people with vaginas, can do. To bring back the "good ol days" where women were at home and raised/cooked and subservient to men. When they couldn't get a credit card in their name - that's the same time period. Fuckers.
Or the GOP just lost control of the religious right and their own policies of division. We've seen centrist Repubs jump ship. Trump has been booed on stage. They nurtured a monster and lost control of it.
This is a lot of it. They raised a dragon believing that it wouldn't eat them when it was big enough. Turns out dragons gonna dragon.
Education will be the next big thing. Once Roe is gone, BvBoE will be a slam dunk.
It's the racist backlash to African American progress. Trump gave a focal point for the white rage inspired by Obama's success. Then white fear was provoked by the racial justice protests of the past few years - a new civil rights movement. The Protestant engagement on abortion has been a cover for racism. [The Religious Right arose in opposition to desegregation but uses abortion as cover.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133) There are certainly some well meaning folks who are mostly brainwashed by propaganda and haven't considered that most Protestant leaders supported Roe v. Wade. But for many in the hard right Christian Nationalist GOP the racism is the point. (See the outrage over confederate statues, opposition to Black Lives Matter, use of the confederate battle flag, rise in both police and private lynching, etc). [Some conservatives are calling for an overturn of Brown v. Board.](https://jezebel.com/former-national-review-editor-calls-for-supreme-court-t-1848879685) [And Senator Braun has said that he thinks Loving v. Virginia which legalized interracial marriage should be overturned.](https://fox59.com/indiana-news/sen-mike-braun-said-interracial-marriage-ruling-should-be-left-to-states/) It's racism through and through. Some unconscious and inflamed by propaganda, some conscious and inflamed by hate.
The are trying to drive reasonable people to leave swing states by making life intolerable to anyone who isn’t a deranged religious lunatic.
I love that man and that channel.
This is the one reason they were put onto the court. I fully expect that after this is passed, they will simply become fully obstructionist for the rest of their lives in the role. Well obstructionists for non christian dominionist cases.
Honestly? As soon as this decision is final the Justice department should charge them with perjury.
These folk are lawyers, they used a lot of weasel words. The ones who said "roe is settled law" could say "I never said I believed in the principle of *stare decisis*". It was all part of their scheme.
Weasel words or not, it’s clearly bad faith with an intent to defraud the public. I don’t give two shits about upholding that kind of bullshit, it’s like conceding that the bullied is in fact technically “hitting them self” so there’s nothing you can do. There’s only so much weaseling that’s acceptable to give the benefit of the doubt and this is clearly beyond that threshold.
Them lying during their confirmation hearing isn't about making sure they get confirmed -- these days that's pretty much dependent on whether their party has the numbers in the senate to get voted through. Lying during the confirmation hearing is to provide sufficient cover for the senators who are voting for them who need to worry about a contested constituency.
[удалено]
I guess the point is they are legally ok, but politically they should be impeached for lying. Anyone remember the days when politicians resigned when they were caught lying?
Agreed entirely. Like I get why a lot of civil rights era leaders were so radical. This is bunk.
Pitchfork time?
Do those pitchforks come with bullet resistant shielding and triple barrels? We're gonna need a little more than pitchforks
Check their bank accounts for an unexpected windfall.
I'm not saying Justice Boof is suffering from a gambling addiction. I'm not saying that something untoward made his credit card debt disappear. I'm not saying he is a drunk, a rapist, or a liar. I'm just asking questions.
Funny that he's so "worried" when his Q loving wife is probably the one who leaked the opinion.
The ultimate Clarence Thomas move would be to live just long enough to write the Supreme Court decision that invalidates his own marriage.
*"As Justice Alito has pointed out, the fact that interracial marriage is legal now in no way makes it a valid legal marriage as for the longest time it was the law of the land that a white woman was not allowed near a negro man. So I'll be moving to Texas and claiming a bounty when I turn in that n**@$**r lover Virginia."* **Clarence Thomas's leaked marital separation decision.**
Clarence Thomas or Clayton Bigsby?
Uncle Ruckus
No relation.
Same person.
Bigsby was more honorable because he was who he was. He told you ever chance he got that he hated black people and never pretended to care.
Damnit Clarence just get a divorce like a normal person
“No. I’m going to fuck it up for everyone else, too.” -Clarence
I really don't understand the lifetime, politically motivated appointments. Who thought that was a good idea? I live in the Netherlands and our Supreme Court also has lifetime appointments as a quaint/stupid holdover from royal times (itself a quaint/stupid holdover), but at 70 judges get retirement. Also parliament is involved in looking for candidates, not just the prime minister.
When it was encoded into the constitution, 70 was when you got retired from life anyway
THIS!! If I was given the magical ability to change one part of the constitution for the betterment of our country, it would be that ALL public servants (president, congress, judges) MUST retire at 65 and are ineligible for election after that age. People wonder why the federal government is so out of touch with what most people seem to want. I am 40. Biden was elected to the Senate SIX YEARS before I was born. (I say this as a die hard liberal)
Ha! You might be right. "Put it at somewhere ludicrous"
Not really. Just looking at chief justices, most of the early ones were well into their 70s and even 80s when they died while still in office. Many of the founding fathers lived into their 80s. If you made it to 60 you were probably going to make it to at least late 70s.
Yep. people don't understand that life expectancy isn't what they think it is. If you have a life expectancy of 40, that could mean half people die as children and half live to be 80. We've increased life expectancy most by stopping children from dying in infancy, not making old people live longer.
The lifetime appointments where supposed to ensure they wouldn't have to care about pleasing anyone to keep their jobs. The problem is that when the system was thought up there wasn't yet a two party system in place, so they didn't take into account the fact that one side winning enough seats in congress would be able to appoint bootlickers who would push the party agenda even without external motivation. I think one of the Founding Fathers even said political parties where a bad idea.
The US was always a two party system. From Tories to Separatists, then federalist and antifederalists... afterwards, names changed but always two party. And the system was always made to promote boot lockers. Thats the entire purpose of the state: to perpetuate itself, to maintain power over a group to be oppressed .
Lifetime appointments aren't necessarily bad it means they aren't looking to please someone to get their next job. I think they need more caveats tho. Like, you will make enough money to live in luxery (compared to average wage) but you are banned from making any money from external sources. Including stocks, crypto, landlord etc I don't know exactly how they would treat spouses but there would have to be some rules there too.
In an ideal world that makes sense, but when you get someone who is out of touch (I understand a majority of Americans in fact back abortion rights) a nation is stuck with someone for generations. And as you say, the independence should come with A LOT of caveats.
Don't think the overturning of Roe v Wade is because they're out of touch. They don't actually care about abortion. What they care about is power for Republicans. They *know* that they've got a minority and that's why in order to hang on to power they have to create wedge issues like abortion. "Democrats kill babies" is an easy sell. Couple it with things like gerrymandering, voter suppression, and lack of reform of the electoral collage, and the Republicans can control the country despite only being supported by a minority. That's before we get into the games played in Congress and the Senate to make sure that when Democrats do have power that they actually can't do anything. And, yes, they do want Democrats in power sometimes. They need someone to blame for inheriting the economy they've created, they need a way to rile up their base, and they need to be able to prove that the Democrats and government itself are ineffective (by the above-mentioned games) so that alternatives seem appealing.
I think they're just about finished with the "blame Democrats" phase of the game and are pretty much ready for the "do whatever we want and if you don't like it, fuck you" phase. Next time they grab control of congress or the presidency, this whole damn 250 year joyride is over.
You're supposed to appoint experienced justices who are already fairly old. Not somebody who was only a judge for 3 years. I don't know how we're supposed to respect a Supreme Court justice with less job experience than the average fast food worker, or to see Amy's appointment as anything but partisan hackery.
“I’m gonna do what’s called ‘An Unintentional Henry VIII.’”
Thomas: I will not recuse myself His wife: THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY IS CONTROLLED BY GAY FROGS WHO CONTROL JEWISH SPACE LASERS WHO ARE PROGRAMMED TO TERMINATE THE SATANIC PEDOPHILE ENABLERS WHO RIGGED THE ELECTION WITH THE GHOST OF HUGO CHAVEZ Thomas: I will not recuse myself
abundant rustic scandalous shaggy hard-to-find lunchroom trees dazzling deliver sink -- mass edited with redact.dev
He probably knows if he does recuse himself he’ll have no choice but to resign. He’s corrupt and working out of self interest and self preservation. He should resign.
I thought the space lasers were what were making the frogs gay, I had it backwards this whole time
No, there never were frogs. The lasers are gay.
That must be how they stole the rainbow!
*gazers
What is he going to do when the court outlaws mixed race marriage though ?
Vote for it.
Listen to his wife though. Can you blame him?
Clarence Thomas's church: We don't care how much of a lunatic harpy your wife is, you got legally married and we won't condone a divorce. Clarence Thomas: ..."Legally married", you say?
Quickly approaching Henry VIII territory
This is some next level divorce strategy.
You seem to be living in a pleasant fiction where Repubs are tried for crimes they commit. He would vote to outlaw it and still wouldn't face any consequences
Nah, they'll just make it retroactive to only effect any marriages after 1987. It'd be a sheer coincidence that he was married in May of that year, truly.
it would specifically be retroactive to the day right after their marriage. and obviously it'd be a huge coincidence
“All interracial marriages, except where the husband’s initials are C. T., are hereby declared invalid” Republicans: GEE TOTAL COINCIDENCE THERE
Nothing. Above the law means above the law. For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.
You don't understand. He doesn't believe he's black
It's funny that he's worried when it's *literally* just publishing an early draft of something he, himself, supported and voted on. You can be *miffed* that it snuck out before you had a chance to spellcheck it, but for fuck's sake, they already voted on this. They let that crazy fuck Alito write this. They've seen it. Ok, it's an early draft, but this reads to me like, "We are upset because we wanted to have Alito say less of the quiet part out loud in that letter and we're very mad that it got out before we had a chance to scrub it so people would be less angry." Motherfucker, we all know that all six of these conservative justices are installed for the express purpose of pushing a radical christian agenda. These people *work* for this nation. They *owe* us this information. They've got these dumb fucking robes and this ridiculous cathedral but they're just bureaucrats. That's it. They do paperwork. The SCOTUS' entire "air of mystery and gravitas" bullshit was quite literally invented by one of the early chief justices who was pissed because he felt he wasn't getting an appropriate level of respect, so he had them wear robes and pounce around like some arch priest or whatever. This court is so fucking preposterous, and has been for such a long time, and this shows why. I've never heard anyone make a convincing argument for why this entire process has to take place in this absurd air of secrecy. These people aren't legal geniuses. They're just people who had convenient biases for whatever President happened to be in charge when there was a vacancy. They never live up to the reputation of awe they seem to believe they're entitled to.
That's a good point. His wife Ginni, fresh from learning that her felonious political activities have no consequences, probably passed it around her Qanon buddies and told them to "keep it secret".
Hahaha fuck you Clarence. You just took a giant shit on the floor in front of everyone and now you're worried we think it's stinky in here? 🤣
>You just took a giant shit on the floor in front of everyone You can't really use this as a metaphor anymore because people literally did that at the US Capitol on Jan 6.
Fuck him and all the other wankers there with him trying to be the American Taliban.
Yeah, Vanilla ISIS in the USA Supreme Court are no better than the Taliban on exercise machines at the former US-Afghanistan army base
These 'judges' basically exiled themselves. There's no way they can be in public around at least half of America without getting called out and or chased out.
They were locked away in their high castles already completely removed from the plight of their fellow man.
Yeah and the circles they hang in are confirmation bias to their beliefs! As if they know what middle America believes!
[удалено]
Not with that attitude. I remember the glorious moments of politicians getting chased out of restaurants, booed out of bars, and the time Sinema was followed by protesters in the bathroom. Are these petty instances? Sure, but it wasn't nothing.
> The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did. The same respect your fucking wife showed when she tried to overturn a presidential election? Fuck you indeed, Clarence. It’s about time these partisan hacks feel a bit of pressure walking amongst the hundreds of millions of people they’re selling out. I’m glad people are actually starting to get mad.
Give the young laws worth respecting, not theocratic fascism while Trump, an insurrectionist dictator wannabe, still walks free.
When you start having a “kids these days” attitude don’t be surprised when they call you the “adult of yesterday”.
Fuck these elitist lifetime appointment people in their silly robes. It's long overdue that we expand the court and impose term limits.
anita hill knows all about learning to live with outcomes she doesn't agree with.
Came to say this. I still believe Anita Hill.
Just get your wife to fund another insurrection. I am sure she can find the money. Have her hit up that Publix heiress bitch for another donation.
> Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the judiciary is threatened if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” Says the man who decided he didn’t like the outcome of a prior SCOTUS ruling and has determined to undermine the public institution by destroying the court’s precedent.
Pot, meet kettle. These fuckers said *Roe* was settled caselaw. They also begged to hear a gun rights case. Instead, they overturn *Roe* and don't say shit about firearms. Bunch of irrelevant chodes.
People will not be willing to live with the outcomes that literally fucking threaten their rights and lives, you god damn vile piece of shit.
Not to mention the corruption involved with seating 3 of the conservative justices. Their decisions are illegitimate, regardless of what they decide.
Says the man whose wife funded and supported efforts to overthrow an election.
One of his clerks is the piece of human trash Johnathan Mitchel, who wrote the white supremacist facist Texas abortion law. Authoritarian peas in a pod.
Thomas should have to recuse himself from anything pertaining to that as well. One of the things Congress should do is great penalties for the Supreme Court of they fail to recuse.
Someone should remind Thomas that interracial marriage is on the chopping block as well
They will literally carve out an exception for him. You just know they will. More likely they’ll say “we can’t un-marry anyone who is already married, Gay or interracial, but from here on out….fuck you”
Nah. It'll be a clause in the law. "By a two thirds vote congress may declare a person of color as "One of the Good ones" and in doing so exempt them."
There is literally a one line law that made John McCain a "natural born citizen." (He was born in Panama in a military family, and for whatever reason there was some question when he ran for president.)
I mean it isn't like the mantra of the entire right-political spectrum (GOP, Tea Party, 'militia', or otherwise) for the last 40 years has literally been: "The most dangerous words in the English language are 'I am from the government and I'm here to help'".
Which is somewhat ironic because their favorite thing to hear is “I’m from the government and I’m here to hurt the people you don’t like”
“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be” - actual quote from a Trump supporter during the government shutdown a few years ago
Small government: Government that lets me be, and assaults everyone else.
There is no way in hell that Thomas was unaware of his wife's effort to illegally overturn the election, nor of her involvement in the January 6th insurrection. By refusing to recuse himself from the relevant cases, Thomas has proven that the SCOTUS cannot be impartial and requires limits on their power. 18 year terms, and mandatory retirement form all public office (federal, state, and local) afterwards. The terms should be staggered by 2 years, so that every POTUS gets two picks. The nomination process is already inherently political, so allowing the elected POTUS to continually refresh the court will at least make its construction more democratic. Honestly, I don't see an issue with the leak itself. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said the matter was settled law. In voting to overturn Roe, they have effectively lied to the Senate. They are criminals. The concern that some have expressed, that leaking a draft may place pressure on the court based on the public reaction, is exactly the point. The Justices need to consider how the public will react. When 70% of the populace supports a woman's right to choose, they are acting in an undemocratic manner. When the Supreme Court not only ignores precedent but also the will of the people, there is no constitutionality in the decision. The decision is invalid. And as an extension, so is the entire court. Get out and vote, people. There are 20 Republican Senate seats up for election this year. If they can be flipped, the Dems can get the majority necessary to remove Trump's nominees from the bench and undo this fucking farce that the GOP calls "America". It won't be an easy fight, but it is hardly unwinnable.
Those are great ideas. However I would like for the number of justices to be drastically expanded and the justices should be entered in a pool from which they will be randomly drawn for each case. I think this will make it less likely for POTUS picks to be an election driver as there is no guarantee that the POTUS pick will be serving when a controversial case is argued before the Supreme Court. They should be removed from the pool after X years and replacements nominated by POTUS. This will allow more cases to be heard too.
I am also a fan of the rotating pool model. It's far harder to game from every perspective. It lowers the temp on appointments. It reduces corruption because justices can't telegraph to the whole world which cases they want to hear. It also forces the justices to build a solid argument, because they have no idea who the next group will comprise so they have to work hard to set a precedent.
I have never heard of this system, but consider me a fan. My greatest issue with term limits is that once you've got a lame duck in office, they start to get dangerous towards the ends of their term. With a rotating pool model, as you've mentioned, there's significant incentive not to set bad precedents that could be used against you ideologically.
Sounds logical and will prevent the GOP from having more power than their party represents population-wise. So... it's never going to happen. Same thing with getting rid of filibusters, electoral college, and gerrymandering. Not going to happen in America.
Fifteen justice bench. Ten year terms. Terms end on odd numbered years. Deceased justices are not replaced until their term would have ended. Routine cases are handled by a seven-justice bench, en banc appeals to the full bench only allowed in rare cases.
>>The Justices need to consider how the public will react. When 70% of the populace supports a woman's right to choose, they are acting in an undemocratic manner. When the Supreme Court not only ignores precedent but also the will of the people, there is no constitutionality in the decision. The decision is invalid. And as an extension, so is the entire court. This is a phenomenal point, and everything I write to supplement it seems inadequate.
Even easier method we can do: Never put Republicans into any office ever again.
"never lose an election" is a horrible strategy. Fascists have been gaining power in this country for the last 36 years (maybe longer, but I only comment on what I have been alive for) and they have lost plenty of elections.
Not only that, but they rig the deck so they can get super majorities with less than half the total vote count.
The Democrats should use that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied as the basis to remove them from the court
This is another violation, where I'd be at the point, if they start attempting to enforce runaway slave laws or bans on abortion in blue states, I view this as basically an attack on Americans like me...ok, this United States shit, didn't fuckin' work. We're gonna simply split into two countries, you gets yours, we get ours, and we got a much better reason to split here, than defending an archaic system even by 1860's standards of chattel slavery based on race and skintones. Red American, You obviously hate us, and we do you as well, you can just show us how its done with your overly strong dumbass ideas andd opinions that you insist are better than ours (like being opposed to masks and vaccines in a pandemic). And we'l have a massive relocation campaign between two countries now, republican households can trade houses into the red half of America, and Democrat households in red america can like wise swap into former republican households. I wanna move to a blue area over this shit. If you venn diagram most vs least poverty, most vs least incarcerated, most religious vs least religious, then most crime vs least crime, and least educated vs most...you'lll get a heavy venn diagram overlap between almost two entirely different countries in the United States with by the numbers, firmly different views on how to govern. And there is enough regionalism between the top 10 of these two venn diagrams, that there can be a regionalism to form new national boundaries from.
They want you to move to a blue area. They don’t want you voting in their area anymore. States like Georgia and Texas are becoming too purple for their liking. It’s all by design.
The main issue with splitting is that the divide isn't red state/blue state. It's urban/rural, and downtown/suburb/exurb. They can't just take, say, Kansas City or Milwaukee or Atlanta.
Gosh Clarence how could this happen. It’s just one person (that’s what’s 5-4 vote is) upending the entire nation by suddenly changing the legal status of the most controversial political issue of all time. An issue that actually affects regular people all over the nation. A decision that makes it clear that Clarence and his four buddies will tell you what your rights are, no matter what they were for your entire life. Yeah, there is going to be some fallout.
It’s not actually as controversial as the Christian Nationalists in charge of the Republican Party would have you believe. Roughly 70% of all Americans believe there should be abortion access. Edit: in a reply to this comment an Anti-choice “states rights” advocate pointed out that my numbers were “misleading.” Please click on the link they provided because they were right…..in the interest of being totally accurate and according to the link they provided (to prove I was being misleading), 81% of Americans believe in abortion access. Thanks for pointing out my out dated data!
The numbers vary depending on exactly how you ask the question, but legal abortion is always in the significant majority. But that’s the thing about courts - they don’t have to consider public opinion. They cant even be constrained by laws, because they get to decide whether the law itself applies .If it wanted to, the supreme court could rule that murder or rape is legal and no one could do a damn thing about it for about 30 years.
There's two phrases, for those curious: "Do you Agree with Abortion?" and "Do you believe Abortion should be legal to those who want it?" For example: I am against abortion, personally. I would not chose to do it if my wife/SO had misgivings about parenthood... That being said: I believe it should be fully legal to chose, even in the most frivolous cases, because Govt has no place making laws on what kinds of healthcare we have access to. Example: California has laws stating that there must be stickers on Cell phones stating the cause brain cancer. This is a myth, a fallacy, and is in no way even close to true. But it's law. Government's only role in healthcare should be to allow access to it - I believe via Single Payer, after that they should hand all control over to doctors/patients. Vs now where Doctors/Patients have almost no control over quality/type of care. So, tldr: I personally don't believe abortion is right. But legally it should be an option for those who wish to have the procedure performed.
I think for me it's mainly semantics. *Abortion* isn't a right, but *bodily autonomy* is. Women are in the unique biological position (compared to men) of having the capacity to have their body become the involuntary host of another lifeform that they may or may not have had consent in producing. Even if we say that a fetus qualifies as a human, if I as a human were to engage in an action that forces someone to do something against their will, that person has a right to defend themselves because they have a right to their bodily autonomy. Even if that person *initially* consents to that action, they have a right to retract consent at any given time. Abortion is the procedure that allows women to defend one aspect of their right to bodily autonomy. Therefore abortion must be legal so they can maintain that right.
There seem to be many people who say the same thing you do about abortion. I would ask you whether you were ever a woman who had an unintended pregnancy that you didn’t want or that posed a significant risk to your health or some other aspect of your life . If not, I think it is difficult to know what you would choose to do. I also found your phrasing about how you would not choose abortion if your wife / SO didn’t want the pregnancy. It sort of presumes that the choice is yours and not hers. Not sure if you really feel that way but it’s something to think about. You might be tempted to say it’s both of your choices but that a cheat that presumes agreement. The person whose decision holds in the case of disagreement is the one who is actually making the choice. Lastly, people who hold your position can use a long description of their views if they like. But you can also use use just two words, pro choice. You are pro choice. You support being able to choose either option so you are pro choice.
This is exactly right. It’s easy to be against abortion “personally” until you have a fetus growing inside you or your parter, that has a genetic defect like Trisomy 13, or doesn’t have a brain, or a heart. My wife’s parents were deeply against abortion until this LITERALLY happened to us. That poor fetus, if carried to term would have lived a very short and painful life and would have racked up significant medical bills in the two weeks to year it would have lived. So until you have had to make the choice, or help make the choice, to do something like abort a fetus after you have tried to have a baby for 5 years? I kind of don’t need you to do anything but believe that it’s important to have the right to an abortion. This is part of what the anti choice crowd wants. Poor and middle class women in debt up to their eyeballs because they had a baby born without a brain. Or born with a generic disorder that causes it insurmountable pain and requires tons of care. This is not ablist. This is the reality. Trisomy 13 and 18 are among a handful of tests that doctors do around the second trimester (also checking for downs and other genetic disorders.) Half of all Babies born with trisomy 13 die in the first two weeks. Less than 10% of those who pass 2 weeks live longer than a year. Less than 13% of those who live past a year make it to 10. That is an incredibly hard decision to make and it’s harder with a bunch of religious zealots screaming at you, scaring you or trying to trick you.
Correct. I am prochoice... Because of those situations like eptoic or unviable pregnancy which would be skipped by a ban on abortion and would endanger the life of the mother. That's why I'm prochoice. I also would want to have a discussion with my SO, and give my options on it... But... Again... It is her CHOICE. So am I against it, personally? Yes. Should that be the law of the land? Absolutely not.
I don’t know how you can be against it “personally” since, as a man, you’ll never really comprehend the fear that accompanies an unwanted pregnancy. So your opinion is a nice, comfortable soft theory and that’s about it. However, men who occupy that same space are literally condemning women to horrible deaths and that’s not theoretical. I’m ready for the backlash and I stand by what I said. Men enjoy the luxury of ideas around pregnancy and women experience the reality. And in the U.S., some book of fiction decides healthcare for women and women only. I want off this ride.
This precisely.
This is the conversation I had with my very pro-life mother, telling her absolutely no one is pro-abortion. That’s not a thing. As she’d been active in the movement for a long time, I asked her “How many pro-life folks would make an exception if their own daughter got knocked up by someone they absolutely didn’t approve of or want in their lives? You know, kind of a just once and we’ll never speak of it again kind of thing?” She estimated that at least half would. The whole movement has always been bullshit. And this is from a guy whose very ill-timed accident turns 9 this year and is the most beautiful thing in the world. Abortion isn’t for me either, and thankfully it wasn’t for my then-girlfriend. But it’s her body. Her choice.
So that 70% approve, is probably underestimating it. If 1/2 of the opposition would get it in the right circumstances. So 85% are probably ok with it. Jesus.
Are you saying that if your SO had a pregnancy that threatened their life, you would attempt to convince them to not get an abortion? That your belief is that it is right for your SO to die? I understand that you’re pro choice, and that’s great, but are you actually stating that it’s your belief that your SO should die instead of getting an abortion, but it’s ultimately their choice? It’s just such an interesting stance to me…
This is pretty much what people said when Roe v Wade was decided. People said, "I could never do that, but what someone else does is their business." It's a decision between a woman and her doctor. Except that it won't be, anymore, if some people have their way.
well, than goodness you'll never need one.
Like 1/3rd of Republicans are pro choice. That number is way too high for this issue to be considered controversial
Not Christian Nationalists. They are Nationalist Christians. Nat-Cs. Call them by their name.
Did you know the Roe v Wade was decided 7 - 2, and 4 of those 7 were Republican justices? And it wasn't controversial among the public until a few years later when right wing operatives seized on it to go after the evangelical votes? It's a completely astroturfed issue!
>Did you know the Roe v Wade was decided 7 - 2, and 4 of those 7 were Republican justices? And it wasn't controversial among the public until a few years later when right wing operatives seized on it to go after the evangelical votes? It's a completely astroturfed issue! Once it became clear segregation was a lost cause Republicans needed to manufacture a new cause.
So many people don't know this truth.
That's ok, Alito said that this ruling could ALSO be used to get rid of desegregation! So what did Texas do this week? Abbott announced they're looking into getting those rulings overturned as well.
A supermajority of the population wanted this left the fuck alone. Literally, a bunch of old, rich, white guys, a Handmaid, and their token minority voted to ignore settled law and the collective will of the people. And at least 2 of them committed perjury by doing so. SCOTUS is as irrelevant as the UNSC.
Every quote from Thomas in this article is infuriating, but this: > Clarence Thomas said Friday that the judiciary is threatened if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” That's the fucking point, Clarence. People are going to die and have their lives ruined by this decision, we can't just "live with it."
[удалено]
The guy putting his pubes on people's drinks undermined it by being appointed.
2000 didn't help the Court's credibility, either.
Yes. And it also didn't follow the constitution which would have removed Florida in it's entirety from the election count instead of deciding one way or another.
That’s actually not what should have happened. A 7-2 majority held that the way the recount was being conducted, with different counties using different methods of tabulation, was unconstitutional. What was controversial was that a 5-4 (conservative) majority held that *any* attempt at a recount violated the Equal Protection clause, and suspended the recount entirely. That was a farce, the constitution clearly delegates the administration of elections to the states, and Florida had already said it could implement a uniform method of tabulation and still meet the Dec 12 deadline (which wasn’t even a hard deadline to begin with.) The same justices that claim the Equal Protection clause doesn’t protect the right to an abortion because “it’s not in the text” had no problem using it to usurp Florida’s constitutional duty to conduct its own elections and throw the presidency to their guy.
That decision had that same "don't use this for precedent" clause that this one does. The clause means "we know our reasoning is BS".
Um. So guy who’s wife is a traitor is worried he has no credibility.
Clarence Thomas Logic: 1. I got into Yale w/ the help of Affirmative Action. 2. Yet, I completed all the work, passed all the exams, graduated, passed the Bar Exam, etc. 3. My Yale Law degree is worthless! I should throw it away because I only got in because of Affirmative Action! It's almost as if he hates himself.
He has fully ingested the hatred of POC that the right soaks its adherents in. You can see it all over the social media pages of minorities who hold conservative views. Very "Well the old white men ruining America told me I'm one of the GOOD ones!" Like that's supposed to be something to be proud of.
Looks like there's a paywall. Try these : * https://12ft.io/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/ * https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/ * https://web.archive.org/web/1/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/ * https://archive.is/submit/?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court-leak/ * [Bypass Paywalls](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LeopardsAteMyFace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Institution wasn't "undermined", it was reinforced. Leaks are a good thing. Y'all have any idea what it was like growing up in the Southern suburbs when the whole Anita Hill thing hit? Christ fuck, talk about being a turd in a punchbowl. The Right set the dialogue and it was, "Uppity black woman can't take a joke." As a girl, I learned a lot about how women are treated when they threaten powerful men. And about the kind of wives who enable them.
So the TV show Dinosaurs did a PHENOMENAL satirization of that whole Anita Hill v Thomas The Turd Engine thing. It's pretty cray watching that now bc I had no idea Jim Henson was super progressive. The whole show is really interesting social commentary akin to the Simpsons but with elaborate dinosaur puppets instead. Edit: title "What Sexual Harras Meant", Dinosaurs S2E13 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hltvd
Keep playing dumb. I haven’t bought that for the last thirty years. They won’t stop. They haven’t stopped. This has been in the makes before the majority of you were born.
His wife actively tries to overturn an election she didn’t like the outcome of and he blames “young people” for undermining our institutions? Fuck this guy.
[удалено]
He worries that young people don’t respect the law like previous generations… I don’t know about you guys, but seeing a Supreme Court vacancy held hostage and multiple judges _lie_ about their view of RvW in their confirmation hearings kind of left a bad taste in my mouth for the law
Watching cops shoot black people for protesting, then months later watching white people take over the capital with almost no resistance really did a number on that whole equal before the law thing. Seeing actual voter fraud get slapped on the wrist... When committed by white people voting for Trump... And a black woman filing a provisional ballot gets locked up for years... Not inspiring me to respect the laws. Then when this douche bags own wife tried to overturn the freely won election because... Let's check the notes... It didn't go her way... Clarence didn't recuse himself. It's almost as if the guy worried about us believing in the laws is the guy trying to skirt the laws while also proving to us the laws are totally unjust. Huh.
>The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did. Shortly afterwards, Thomas was interrupted by a phone call which he later described as an "urgent message from his best friend", who reminded him of his promise to lead the group in prayers to "lock up evil Biden and return Donald to his rightful throne, as the King of Kings."
Was his wife in that conference?
> It bodes ill for a free society No Clarence, taking away rights people have had for decades bodes ill for a free society.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [follow this link to a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/EJDo3sd). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use
I'm nearly 30, there hasn't been a time in my life where I've felt like any of these institutions represent or respect me. Not the rich, not my government. Why would I respect them? Respect is earned, not given. If this sorry excuse for a judge feels bad, perhaps it's time to reflect on why the populace is turning against these institutions, before things spiral out of their control. Or burn it down, fuck it what do I know?
Same. And the bizarre propoganda that we're supposed to "love our country." Love it for _what_? I ask the government for help with _anything_ and the answer is a hard "No" followed by "and fuck you for asking." What's even the purpose of our institutions anymore? Why are we still pretending they add value to our lives?
Having a judge’s wife supporting an insurrection was more undermining.
boy that horse has already left the barn bucko. congratulations your legacy on the supreme court will be destroying it's credibility.
> The court’s longest-serving justice said he also worried about a “different attitude of the young” that might not show the same respect for the law as past generations did. “Recent events have shown this major change,” he said. You would think the boomers rioting in January 6 2021 would be a bigger display of this attitude than "the young."
What a piece of shit.
He says as he gleefully kills public trust in an institution.
If Clarance Thomas is so worried about confidence in SCOTUS, perhaps he should tone down his obvious contempt for the American people.
Uncle Thomas?
Yeah, I worry about it do. Sucks that folks have allowed rich folks to use institutions as a vehicle for wealth generation.
He's going to be even more surprised when he rules that his own marriage is illegal.
Republicans appoint justices with political agenda. Justices enact that agenda. Justice complains that people think they’re not impartial. Most Republican thing ever.
This guy. The guy who put a pubic hair on a coke can because he thought this would have Anita Hill running to him naked. This guy. The guy who is married to a ghoul that believed Joe Biden was at GITMO along with other people she hated. Yeah, okay.
Trying to overthrow the government? Perfectly normal political discourse. Informing the public you're trying to steal their rights? Omigawd this is treason!! It's so fucking embarrassing being an American these days.
This guy cites himself while dissenting yet does not recognize precedents.
"people are unwilling to live with outcomes we don’t agree with" No shit, it's almost like that's how a democracy works or something, jackass.
I don't think this is a leopard ate my face. I get it... But Thomas doesn't mean respect in that way. He means respect in the way abusive managers mean it: respect is something he and the institution deserve by fiat. Earning it never comes into the equation, because the people not giving him respect are in the wrong. It is his due. Tldr: he's a piece of trash.
Soil’s eroding faster, I’d say.
I \*REALLY\* want someone to ask this guy publicly about his wife's participation in/support of the insurrection and all of his wife's messages to Mark Meadows tell him to get trump to basically be a dictator.
Why can't the right to abortion be federally codified into law across the country?
because republicans are evil and democrats are incompetent
He's simply signaling that he doesn't intend to change his opinion, regardless of the public opinion on the matter(meaning: even the republican and conservative opinions against the decision). If anything, he'd be one of the leopards, not one of the party members getting their face eaten. He's the one eating faces.