It's not often that America's most rabidly right-wing Justice gets to attack two things at once. But yesterday, Justice Clarence Thomas figured out how not only to dismantle the people-powered principles of democracy, but he also got to trash on the gays, too, suggesting that LGBT people were nothing more than violent, vengeful vixens.
By now almost everyone and their corporate crony boss has heard about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 5-4 decision released yesterday which said that corporations can pour as much money as they darn well please into election campaigns. Keith Olbermann called it the end of democracy. Corporations salivated as if they were served the best filet mignon in the world.
Justice Clarence Thomas? He just did a little dance, because the case allowed him to throw a bone to his corporate friends, and throw a bomb at LGBT activists. Turns out that there are bad Supreme Court decisions. And then there are dissenting opinions from Justice Thomas that are even worse.
Don't get us wrong -- when we say dissenting, we don't mean in a good way. See, Justice Thomas was down with the idea of giving corporate actors free reign when it comes to election spending. He dissented because he wanted to take the ruling even further to say that not only can corporate actors spend willy-nilly, but they should be able to do so anonymously without disclosing their identity.
And to put a cherry on top of that decision, Justice Thomas blamed the rationale behind it on LGBT people!
Seriously, Justice Clarence Thomas uses the right-wing myth that after California passed Proposition 8, LGBT people started going all V for Vendetta on supporters of traditional marriage. So that corporate donors don't face such violent (albeit mythological) wraths in the future, Justice Thomas wants corporate donations to be kept behind lock and key.
"Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer's name ... and the total amount of his contributions," Justice Thomas wrote. "Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result."
Funny, but I don't seem to remember anyone being killed in the wake of Proposition 8. But it's almost like Justice Thomas was channeling Ron Prentice with this language. Maybe he was -- hell, it wouldn't be all that surprising to me if Justice Thomas called up the Yes on 8 folks and said, "Hey, can you feed me a few lines here?"
There are abysmal Supreme Court rulings, from Dred Scott to Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United v. FEC is eventually going to join those ranks when the history books are written. Meanwhile, Justice Thomas will be remembered as the guy who not only gave corporations a free pass, but tried to conjure up false evidence that LGBT people are violent thugs to justify it.
Accountability. Maybe it's a term that Justice Thomas missed during his school days.
But when you stop and think about Justice Thomas' decision, there's an even more bitter (and snarky) piece of irony. From what we can tell, Justice Thomas thinks that political donors who want to contribute to campaigns that undermine the civil rights of folks should remain anonymous, lest they face harassment.
Maybe, for Justice Thomas, harassment is only permissible if it's happening inside his office. Anybody want to pass me that can of Coke over there ...
