To access this clip without audiomarks, please purchase it, or upgrade your account.
Clarence Thomas Blasts Media, Defends Supreme Court After Texas Abortion Decision (clip)

Name: YouTube


Clarence Thomas

Name: Clarence Thomas

Employment: U.S. Supreme Court

Position: Associate Justice

Event location
09/17/2021 03:47 pm
MP4 (720x406) Use clipper to adjust file type
Thomas Oh the misconception ░░░░░░░░ know I think that ░░░░░░░░ think that we make ░░░░░░░░ I think the media ░░░░░░░░ it sound as though ░░░░░░░░ are just always going ░░░░░░░░ to your personal impressions ░░░░░░░░ So if they think ░░░░░░░░ re anti abortion or ░░░░░░░░ personally I think that ░░░░░░░░ s the way you ░░░░░░░░ will come out They ░░░░░░░░ you re you for ░░░░░░░░ or for that they ░░░░░░░░ become like a politician ░░░░░░░░ I think that s ░░░░░░░░ problem to the I ░░░░░░░░ you re gonna jeopardize ░░░░░░░░ faith in the legal ░░░░░░░░ And I think the ░░░░░░░░ and the interest groups ░░░░░░░░ that And I ll ░░░░░░░░ you an example of ░░░░░░░░ the so I know ░░░░░░░░ s a football game ░░░░░░░░ weekend and Nebraska is ░░░░░░░░ Oklahoma and Cheering and ░░░░░░░░ Oh you all have ░░░░░░░░ too huh Laughter So ░░░░░░░░ any rate let s ░░░░░░░░ this weekend that you ░░░░░░░░ like if a referee ░░░░░░░░ a call that favors ░░░░░░░░ Dame and Notre Dame ░░░░░░░░ people would say Well ░░░░░░░░ was a fine referee ░░░░░░░░ s what you re ░░░░░░░░ to do as a ░░░░░░░░ But the but if ░░░░░░░░ referee makes that very ░░░░░░░░ call and it works ░░░░░░░░ Notre Dame Oh my ░░░░░░░░ I mean this guy ░░░░░░░░ t even see Come ░░░░░░░░ Anybody could have seen ░░░░░░░░ The exact same call ░░░░░░░░ s because we re ░░░░░░░░ We re not acting ░░░░░░░░ judges We want a ░░░░░░░░ outcome And so we ░░░░░░░░ at the outcome and ░░░░░░░░ totally colors what we ░░░░░░░░ the level and the ░░░░░░░░ of the refereeing was ░░░░░░░░ if it s for ░░░░░░░░ that was excellent refereeing ░░░░░░░░ it was against us ░░░░░░░░ absolutely horrible the guy ░░░░░░░░ give it up So ░░░░░░░░ but that s not ░░░░░░░░ you can do when ░░░░░░░░ at cases But that ░░░░░░░░ precisely read any article ░░░░░░░░ sort of one of ░░░░░░░░ big cases and that ░░░░░░░░ precisely what you have ░░░░░░░░ s like if the ░░░░░░░░ is what I want ░░░░░░░░ to be excellent work ░░░░░░░░ know another Marbury V ░░░░░░░░ If it is against ░░░░░░░░ you re for Look ░░░░░░░░ Scott all over again ░░░░░░░░ is horrible I mean ░░░░░░░░ s just the way ░░░░░░░░ works But I think ░░░░░░░░ s wrong I think ░░░░░░░░ you go back and ░░░░░░░░ look at some of ░░░░░░░░ New York Times articles ░░░░░░░░ the 30s and 40s ░░░░░░░░ Supreme Court cases the ░░░░░░░░ that I ve read ░░░░░░░░ excellent because they summarize ░░░░░░░░ case they talk about ░░░░░░░░ arguments they summarize the ░░░░░░░░ and then they there ░░░░░░░░ be a short paragraph ░░░░░░░░ the implications Now put ░░░░░░░░ side by side with ░░░░░░░░ you would get today ░░░░░░░░ I think that that ░░░░░░░░ problematic and that sort ░░░░░░░░ encourages these preconceptions about ░░░░░░░░ court That s all ░░░░░░░░ personal preferences.”
To view this clip's transcript, log into your Grabien account.