Justice Clarence Thomas is a luddite Marxist. Thomas is like on of those weirdo college professors who thinks corporations shouldn’t exist. Thomas interjected his primitive Marxist impulses into a recent decision (Hunter v. United States), by saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I disagree with any insinuation that the only thing stopping federal judges from violating their oaths is the possibility of a sentencing appeal. I also disagree with the assumption that the problem of possibly erroneous trial courts can only be solved by possibly erroneous appellate judges. The Government even notes that it can decline to enforce waivers if an egregious injustice occurs. There were no criminal appeals for over 100 years of American history, and our legal system did not descend into chaos.”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n By saying “insinuation”, Thomas concedes he is not arguing with anything anyone said. The word “chaos” wasn’t threatened by anyone. They were considering whether a particular form of appellate review offers marginal improvement, not whether its absence prevents chaos, or whether Americans were better off without courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But nor is the word “chaos” a straw man. And Thomas knows he can’t argue that the United States was better as a primitive agricultural society without appeals courts or a Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas wants to say he is skeptical that decisions by appeals courts will be more informed or virtuous than those made by local politics. In general, without detailed analysis for this specific situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas thinks the policy of interjecting an appeals court could create marginal harm rather than improvement. But for reasons and against counter-arguments which Thomas cannot fully articulate. Based on a general sense, rather than a case-specific analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas wants to say he generally disagrees that more courts always improve things. And wants to emphasize that there can be other influences regulating decision-makers outside courts. But nobody argued the other side of that. And Thomas can’t quite pin down what he is arguing with or against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are implied assumptions, that successive more abstract layers of review by monitors helps to verify the quality of decisions. That formal court process created by the legislature, is progress and has not made our country worse. That courts exposing decisions to public and appellate review improves them, and that being checked by appeals courts can improve local decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the debate in this case was not a general one, it was whether the specific form of appellate review contemplated is legal and marginally beneficial. Thomas disagrees that it is. But without being able to articulate exactly what he disagrees with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas is vaguely attacking the very assumption that courts are useful, and the idea that he should even have a job, by saying executive-branch officers make better decisions without courts. This is not based on rigorous analysis, but based on a primitive impulse. Where Thomas is able to seize on the fact that courts have sometimes been wrong, as emotionally-needed validation that his impulse is right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas is nudged by a primitive impulse, into a luddite Marxist belief that more courts makes things worse and everything can be decided by local social groups in a kibbutz. Which not even uncontacted tribes do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reason Thomas can’t clearly state his ideas or the counter-argument he is responding to, is the same the reason he has the ideas at all. It’s because his ideas are primitive and undeveloped impulses, that cannot stand up to detailed analysis. Thomas has a vague perception that social groups are virtuous, and can decide things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas is a smart guy, who is turned into a Marxist by a vestigial mirage of tribal social organization in his brain, projected onto millions of people. Which is not the product of logic but an instinct built into his brain physiology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Justice Clarence Thomas is a luddite Marxist. Thomas is like on of those weirdo college professors who thinks corporations shouldn’t exist. Thomas interjected his primitive Marxist impulses into a recent decision (Hunter v. United States), by saying: “I disagree with …<\/p>\n