Content-Type: text/shitpost

Subject: Thomas's dissent in McGirt
Path: you​!your-host​!wintermute​!wikipedia​!uunet​!asr33​!hardees​!m5​!plovergw​!ploverhub​!shitpost​!mjd
Date: 2020-07-09T21:04:18
Newsgroup: sci.math.mcgirt
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/shitpost

A colleague asked me to provide “choice quotes” from Thomas's dissent, which I said “might be the most Clarence Thomasy thing I've ever read”. But I think they were disappointed, because what makes it so very Clarence Thomasy is how dry and fussy it is. Here's a choice quote, if you can call it that, which examplifies what I had in mind:

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that petitioner’s claim was procedurally barred under state law because it was “not raised previously on direct appeal” and thus was “waived for further review.” This state procedural bar was applied independent of any federal law, and it is adequate to support the decision below. We therefore lack jurisdiction to disturb the state court’s judgment.

Maybe I should write a longer article on the real blog explaining what this means. I wouldn't have to worry that doing so would kill the joke, because there is no joke and there was nothing funny to begin with.