I admit that as a black man, the likes of Clarence Thomas embarasses the hell out of me. But he made it even worse by attacking Justice Stevens for supposed unfamiliarity with military combat when in fact Stevens served in WWII while the closest Thomas has probably gotten is a rental of some porn knockoff of Saving Private Ryan.
Related
No related posts
As usual, a little context is instructive:
As an initial matter, the plurality relies upon the date of the AUMF s enactment to determine the beginning pointfor the period of the war, Winthrop 836, thereby suggest-ing that petitioner s commission does not have jurisdiction to try him for offenses committed prior to the AUMF s enactment. Ante, at 34 36, 48. But this suggestion betrays the plurality s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents. The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities. See Prize Cases, supra, at 668 (recognizing that war may be initiated by invasion of a foreign nation, and that such initiation, and the President s response, usually precedes congressional action).
So,
- Thomas is referring to the group as a whole, not to Justice Stevens specifically,
- Thomas does not mention combat, as you did (though as far as I know Stevens was not in combat,) but warfare. The rest of the paragraph clearly shows that he is talking about warfare in the broad context of international politics…a subject in which Stevens’ honorable service as a Navy code breaker during WWII did not make him an authority.
Are you referring to the seminal classic, Saving Ryan’s Privates?
That’s Shaving Ryan’s Privates.
So, Ollie is embarrassed by Clarence Thomas, but in a previous post he refers to Kwesi Mfume as a man with “honor” and “dignity”.
So, for those of you keeping score at home, a guy thinking for himself and straying from the liberal plantation is far worse than fathering more out of wedlock kids than Shawn Kemp.
The mind boggles.
Scratch,
In this case, the “plurality” = Justice John Paul Stevens, because he wrote the opinion. Supreme Court justices often take potshots at each other in their opinions by referring to each other in this general way.
As for his military experience, suffice it to say that 3 years in the U.S. Navy during a world war and a Bronze Star might not make him an authority on “warfare” or “combat,” but it sure as hell makes him much MORE of an authority than a man with absolutely no military experience.
Now go take your pathetic Swift Boat talking points elsewhere.
O.Y.E….
Thanks for the first point…very informative.
The second point: Thomas disagreed with Stevens’ understanding of this type of warfare, and by his explanation it is obvious that 3 years of enlisted service 60 years ago would be of no assistance in interpreting the present situation.
The third point: Sorry, I fail to see the parallel, as I have not heard any claim by dozens of former comrades that Stevens was a dirtbag.
I hope one day the tables are turned and Justice Stevens gets to write this in his dissent:
“But this suggestion betrays the plurality s unfamiliarity with the realities of porn movies and its willful blindness to our precedents regarding making sexually lewd comments to female co-workers.”
Now THAT would be funny.
Agreed.
“but it sure as hell makes him much MORE of an authority than a man with absolutely no military experience.”
No it doesn’t. The left persists, when and only when it suits their ideological purpsoes, that any military service equates to military smarts. The military can put you in a job that is so secluded, classified and/or specialized that you have less idea of what is going on in the big world – than those not in the military. And crytography can be one those type jobs.
Dugger
Because Thomas was largely picked because of his race and because blacks in high positions reflect on the perception of the larger black community (Rice or Obama, for instance).
Our esteemed host wrote:
That would be like me saying, “I admit that as a white man, the likes of John Paul Stevens embarasses the hell out of me.” After all, I certainly don’t like the way he votes in the Supreme Court, and I find his occasional use of foreign precedent alarming.
So, you disagree with Justice Thomas politically. Why would that embarass you more than the white justices with whom you disagree?
No, The Left doesn’t.
In this case, as in so many others, a conservative with no military experience denigrates the experience of someone who has served. No one here has tried to claim that Stevens is a grand military theorist. OW has simply pointed out that the man questioning his familiarity with military matters has zero experience himself and is woofing out his trousers.
For someone who eagerly trots out the “Left Hate the Troops” shibboleth, you’re surprisingly willing to stand up for those who marginalize a veteran’s experience.
but it sure as hell makes him much MORE of an authority than a man with absolutely no military experience.
How is that so? There are people I know who have served in the military that I wouldn’t trust to win a game of Stratego or Risk. The last thing I want them doing is pontificating about warfare.
BUT BUT BUT Quaker!! Are you saying only people with a military background are allowed to have an opinion on military matters?? Why are you lefties denying First Amendment rights to a man with an expertise in bukkake scenes who wants to express an opinion on the “realities of warfare”??
SPUTTER!!! Harumph!!
/typical right-winger
Quakerina
“In this case, as in so many others, a conservative with no military experience denigrates the experience of someone who has served.”
No. The point stands. You guys pretend that military experience is of primary importance when the military person is saying or doing something you agree with. And he did not denigrate (to use your word) Steven’s personal experience. Thats malarkey.
Bush has military experince and (I assume) OW deosn’t. How can, then, using your logic, OW criticize Bush on anything with military implications. he’s disqualifiedf, right?
Dugger
I know some barbers who do a lousy job of cutting hair. But I’d still go to them before I’d ask an auto mechanic take a whack at it.
Your imagination is working overtime.
No one pretended that Stevens’ military experience is of primary importance. OW simply pointed out that the person who says that Stevens service grants him no knowledge asserts his own insight into military matters, even though he has zero experience.
See?
Pointing out that Justice Thomas is just flappin’ isn’t the same thing as claiming Stevens as one of our own.
OW simply pointed out that the person who says that Stevens service grants him no knowledge asserts his own insight into military matters, even though he has zero experience.
First of all, OW asserts that Thomas attacked Stevens unfamiliarity with “combat” and Thomas said no such thing. Believe it or not, there is a difference between combat and warfare. I know guys who have been in combat, but they wouldn’t know the first thing about warfare. They were good at taking orders and following those orders. That’s it.
FDR never served a day in uniform. But it was obvious he was very familiar with the realities of warfare. Neither Clausewitz nor Eisenhower commanded troops except from a very high perch, but both are considered at the top when discussing military strategy.
I know some barbers who do a lousy job of cutting hair. But I d still go to them before I d ask an auto mechanic take a whack at it.
Yeah, and to use the illustration above, cutting hair a few times doesn’t make somebody a stylist and changing the oil in your car once, doesn’t make a person a mechanic. As such, Stevens servie in the Navy doesn’t elevate him to status of military strategist.
In view of the inability to decide if Thomas actually meant Stevens individually, and the inability to determine if Thomas was actually referring to participation in combat, as opposed to having kowledge of warfare; I think it is safe to conclude that Thomas in no way attacked Stevens.
So unless you want to continue to make jokes about Thomas’ (alleged, but unconfirmed) links to porn, I would suggest that the subject is closed.
Back to Limbaugh and Viagra
Just like Dugger, you’re trying to turn this upside down. Nobody wants to elevate Stevens to military strategist. OW pointed out that the activist judge who criticizes Stevens familiarity with military matters has–unlike Stevens–zero military experience.
Let me ask you a question, Quaker. Do you have any idea how much experience Stevens has in the military?
Is that because you have none, or because you don’t know?
If Thomas was saying that Stevens’ plurality decision was based on his (Stevens’) knowledge of asymmetrical warfare, then it was a poor one.
I agree with Thomas.
Now, am I right because I was in the military?
Stereotyping…
I have resisted writing about the rape charges against three members of the Duke Lacross team until now and I m still hesitant. I am unwilling to prejudge a case like this, outside of a courtroom, possessing only partial evidence, evide…
I’m sure all you open-minded fellows would be just as accommodating if Justice Stevens wrote that Justice Thomas has a poor understanding of racial discrimination, yes?
Yes.
The answer is: more than Justice Thomas.
Quaker, you’re being silly again. Knock it off.
My compliments to our esteemed host. He allowed a trackback from my site which was critical (in the same sense as my comments above were critical) of his position on this article. It has always appeared to me that Mr Willis has this site set up to review trackbacks before they appear, and I know that he was personally aware of the trackback (since he responded), and he did not censor it in any way.
BTW, not for nothing, but how many people have said Justice Thomas knows little about discrimination.
Quite a few, yes?
I wouldn’t say he knows little about it, but like quaker says, he has a poor understanding of it.
No, actually, you are.
I was making a slightly different, although somewhat relevant point.