Justice Thomas Willing To Trash Constitutional Rights

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has long been, along with Justice Antonin Scalia, the most extreme right-winger on the Court. And in a recent Supreme Court decision (on the offering of prayers before city government meetings), he showed he is even further to the extreme right than Scalia (which is hard to do). In fact, Thomas is so far to the right that he is willing to trash the Constitution to uphold his personal beliefs -- the same Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

In the case of Town of Greece vs. Galloway, Thomas voted with the majority to allow the town to open meetings with a prayer -- but Thomas went further than the other justices, and in a separate opinion stated that he does not believe the First Amendment clause prohibiting government from an "establishment of religion" applies to the states -- but only to the federal government. He says the Constitution does not prohibit any state from establishing an official religion (and presumably forcing its citizens to participate in that official state religion).

This flies in the face of religious tradition in the United States. Many early settlers of this country came here because they were denied the freedom to practice their own religion in another country. And the framers of the Constitution included freedom of religion in the First Amendment, because they wanted to make sure this country did not make the mistake of forcing people to accept a religion they did not want. That amendment assures every American the right to believe in whatever religion he/she wants to, or in no religion at all.

Sadly, Thomas doesn't seem to be smart enough to realize that if the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states, then it is of no value at all. What good is a federal guarantee of religious freedom if any state can ignore that guarantee and force its preferred religion on its inhabitants?

And what about other guaranteed rights in the Constitution? If the states can ignore religious freedom rights, why can't they ignore other rights. How about the First Amendment rights of free speech or free assembly? How about the Second Amendment? Does it also apply only to the federal government? Can a state ignore it and deny all citizens the right to own a firearm (and even confiscate those firearms currently owned by their citizens)? How about the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments? Can the rights guaranteed in those amendments be denied by the states?

As you can see, Thomas' argument is ridiculous? No individual (not even Justice Thomas) or state can deny to any citizen any right contained in the Constitution, and that includes the right to religious freedom (including the right to be free of an imposed state religion). And individuals and states cannot choose which rights apply to them and which do not. Either all constitutional rights are guaranteed to citizens of all the states, or no rights are guaranteed to the citizens of any state. There is no middle ground (no matter how much right-wingers might wish there was).

The Constitution is absolute. It is the law of the land, and every state must adhere to it (and that includes local government as well). This country will be a lot better off when Justice Thomas is no longer on the Supreme Court. We don't need any justice willing to trash the Constitution he swore to uphold.

(NOTE -- The caricature of Justice Thomas above is by DonkeyHotey.)