Clarence Thomas is the best among them. If only we had five more like him, then, maybe, this country wouldn't be Babylon.

I'm sure globalist, George Bush, and his Jєω banking cartel-handlers, had/have major regrets for appointing Thomas to the SC. 

I'm sure globalist, George Bush, and his Jєω banking cartel-handlers, had/have major regrets for appointing Thomas to the SC.

They thought they had themselves a house kneegrow, but he is a Catholic man.

I'm sure globalist, George Bush, and his Jєω banking cartel-handlers, had/have major regrets for appointing Thomas to the SC.

They don't mind having a token conservative on the SCOTUS (1 out of 9) just to keep people guessing about whether they truly control everything.

https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/'catholic'-supreme-court-justices/msg803602/#msg803602

He practiced legal pharisaism.

https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/scalia-dead/msg496282/#msg49628

It's a common misconception among Catholics that Scalia was the Supreme Court justice who represents Catholic teaching. From "Why Justice Scalia Disagrees with St. Thomas:"

"Aquinas also states several times that when equity demands it, judges should depart from the text to vindicate the natural law."
…
"In no circuмstance is a judge to depart from the text in order to perfect the law, according to Justice Scalia."

This is Phariseeism!

I am not a fan of articles that do not post citations, but I was wondering early today what the source was, from that article.


https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm


Summa Theologica,

II-II, Question 120. "Epikeia" or equity

Article 1. Whether "epikeia" [epieikeia] is a virtue?

[. . .]

Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view. Thus the law requires deposits to be restored, because in the majority of cases this is just. Yet it happens sometimes to be injurious—for instance, if a madman were to put his sword in deposit, and demand its delivery while in a state of madness, or if a man were to seek the return of his deposit in order to fight against his country. On these and like cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good. This is the object of "epikeia" which we call equity. Therefore it is evident that "epikeia" is a virtue.

From another article:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/why-justice-scalia-disagrees-with-thomas-aquinas/

On Jan. 7, little more than one month before his death, the justice gave a public lecture in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 800th jubilee of the Dominican Order.

[. . .]

Justice Scalia began by noting that in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 60 a. 5), Aquinas argues that a judge ought to render justice according to what stands in the written law. Here the justice beamed in manifest agreement. In answering objections to this position, however, Aquinas adds—and here the justice immediately became uncomfortable—that a judge can for the sake of “the equity which the lawgiver had in view” disregard a poorly written law to uphold some natural right. For Justice Scalia, this concession of the Angelic Doctor was wittily bemoaned as a horror “worthy of the Warren Court!”



[. . .]

Justice Scalia was known above all for his principled, articulate resistance to every whiff of judicial activism. In the former law professor’s sharply “textualist” or “originalist” philosophy of judicial interpretation, the law should be respected exactly as it stands written. And what is not written is not legislated, to quote the ancient adage.

 He also took a (false?) oath to uphold the atheist, Masonic U.S. Constitution, which doesn't even mention God, let alone His Catholic Church.

I have had various occasions over the years to reflect on this oath.  Knowing and believing what I do now, if I was to take the same oath (or affirmation) today I would consider it a very grave violation of my hopefully well informed Catholic conscience.

 A good number of decades ago as a young, dumb American (and non-practicing Catholic) first as part of my enlistment and about a year later as part of my becoming a commissioned officer -- I took the oath (or affirmation) seen below which I think is still worded the same now as it was then.  Not unlike many of my companions, no doubt, I had little idea of what the Constitution actually was, much less what it actually stated.  And here we were solemnly swearing or affirming things concerning it.  Sheer theater!  A fitting way, no doubt, to enter into or advance in the theater of the absurd -- aka the U.S. Military. 

 And now just extend this solemn swearing or affirming things concerning this Constitution which go way beyond the military and extend into so much of our past and ongoing American history and culture.  The implications from a Catholic moral perspective are mind boggling.

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."