In a time when a liberal President and a conservative President are in agreement that the government can detain anyone it wants indefinitely without trial or charges, and that it can break the law and then obscure its lawbreaking under the rubric of national security, I'm not inclined to say that there is a "proliferation of rights". In related news, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may have just clarified why he doesn't talk much:
‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Funny, I don't remember there being a "Bill of Obligations" or a "Bill of Responsibilities" in the Constitution of the United States of America. But since Thomas is an originalist who interprets the Constitution the way the founders intended, I suppose it must be in there somewhere.
-- A. Serwer
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)