This Man Thinks "No Limit Texas Hold'em" Is A Theory Of Constitutional Rights

Okay, you want examples of embarassing Thomas decisions? Here you go. From Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where Thomas--failing to bring any other justice, even Scalia, around to his bizarre, monarchical view of presidential powers--found it okay to detain someone, forever, on the mere say-so of the president:

Undeniably, Hamdi has been deprived of a serious interest, one actually protected by the Due Process Clause. Against this, however, is the Government's overriding interest in protecting the Nation. If a deprivation of liberty can be justified by the need to protect a town, the protection of the Nation, a fortiori, justifies it.

It's just that simple in Thomas' mind. The security of the Nation is at stake, so "the protection of the Nation, a fortiori, justifies it." Following this reasoning, what deprivation of liberty would not be justifiable "a fortiori"? No one's liberty can be more important than the protection of a nation, right? Thomas seems to balance them one-to-one. This is the reasoning of Korematsu, which I think even most right-wingers can agree is an embarassment. I hope.

In Thomas' mind, the war on terrorism means you have no rights at all. This sounds like hyperbole, but it's not--this is what he thinks our Constitution means. This is what he thinks the Framers fought for. This is his best work. Welcome to the world of Clarence Thomas.

"Embarassment" doesn't begin to cover it.