Eugene Robinson hits the nail so hard on the head about just how dumb Clarence Thomas is.
There are, as he ought to know, plenty of black conservatives. There are plenty of African American parents teaching their children the same lessons of hard work and self-reliance that Thomas’s grandfather taught him. The black church, I would argue, is one of the more socially conservative major institutions in the nation.
Black America has never been monolithic in its views, but black Americans do vote almost monolithically for Democrats. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case if Richard Nixon hadn’t built an electoral strategy on a race-based appeal to Southern whites — and if every Republican presidential candidate and party leader since Nixon hadn’t followed suit. Just last week, the four leading contenders for the Republican nomination all skipped a forum at historically black Morgan State University. As long as snubbing black voters is seen as smart politics in the Republican Party, black conservatives have good reason to stick with the Democrats.
Robinson goes on to explain why, until the cows come home, black conservatives like Clarence Thomas will be known as the self-loathers they are.
UPDATE: Professor Anita Hill, the woman that this… troll… sexually harassed has written an op-ed in the NY Times to counter his slander of her in his book pimping tour.
ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I stand by my testimony.
Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.
See, people. This is why the Supreme Court is more than Roe v. Wade. It’s about getting good, decent people on the highest court in the land, and not absolute filth like Clarence Thomas whose odor wafts from every case he gets his grubby little paws on.
I would love to see Anita Hill sue Clarence Thomas for libel. Sounds to me like she’s got plenty of grounds for a charge of wilfull and malicious misrepresentation.
Wilbur, you are a pu$$y.
At the end of the day, Thomas will still be on the SCOTUS regardless of what you wish or write.
I’m afraid you’re right, a$$hole (much to the shame of that great institution and the entire nation). But I’m thinking there’s just a chance that a judgment in a libel suit might just be grounds for impeachment.
And so will Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But you probably won’t stop bitching about that, will you?
Just can’t stand those uppity blacks leaving your plantation.
Actually, it seems to me that conservative whites are the ones with a “plantation mentality” when it comes to black and brown folks, who are only allowed inside the house when they suck up to them, agree with them and generally kiss their backsides. The ones who disagree with them are stuck outside in the fields and, as far as they are concerned, some kind of alien enemy whose culture is just shy of barbaric and whose grievances are wholly without merit. After all, their good friends LaShawn Barber, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas just told them they’re always right, so why bother listening to those other colored folk–they’re obviously brainwashed and still living on that Democratic plantation.
Word in the hood has it that Scalia was the ghostwriter for Thomas’ introspective work. Hey, he forms all of his opinions for him.
Maybe Justice Long Dong can don a thong under his black sarong and have a chambers get-along with Toensing and DiGenova. Now there’s some affirmative action for ya uppity “conservatives”.
Seriously, if it so turns his stomach that he was put on the fast track for the SCOTUS due to his blackness maybe he should do the noble thing and step down. That would require character, something Thomas can only now yank out of his memory hole.
“Just can’t stand those uppity blacks leaving your plantation.”
This overlooks the fundamental dynamic at play here. What black voters want is not relevant to republican candidates. Republicans are more concerned about losing white votes than gaining black supporters. They actually see a downside in courting black voters because they know the racist inclinations of their base. They figure they would lose more votes among whites by addressing the concerns of black audiences. It’s as simple as that. A majority of blacks could express an interest in supporting a conservative candidate and the candidates would still avoid them like the plague.
You know it’s funny. Oliver uses ad hominem like a pro to describe Thomas (”Dumb”, “stain”, “troll”, “filth” etc). I see other people saying crap like Thomas “works against the interests of his own people.” Thomas’s duty is not to “work in the interest of his own people” but in the interest of all Americans. Then there’s the usual, “Scalia writes his opinions” nonsense.
I would like to see if there is anybody that can actually (on their own) offer up an actual criticism of one of Thomas’s court opinions and justify with that, why he doesn’t deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.
Any takers or are you all happy to stick with the “Thomas is a doody head” approach?
Jay
1. Thomas doesn’t participate in oral argument except for once, on the topic of cross-burning. He apparently feels it’s a waste of time. In the whole history of the Court, I’m not aware of another Justice who had this attitude.
2. Any justice who voted in the majority on Bush v. Gore should probably have resigned immediately afterward, in my opinion. Very poor reasoning and bad law in that decision. Pure politics at play there.
3. pretty sure google or wiki would direct you to a half dozen opinions of his, along with critiques.
Thank you, Jay. You seem to be the only rational adult on this website. It is well known… dat we negroes is jest too stupid ta think fo ourselves. We need phony reverends and pandering whites to tell us what’s good for us. Democrats continue to feed the fire of our self-immolation while republicans struggle to stay relevant. My God! Look at what is happening to our culture and self-image. Snoop Dog? Fitty Cent? Sharpton? These aren’t leaders, these are thiefs. Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Juan Williams inspire to excel and be strong.
This is a simple case of hearsay - you may choose the side that works to tear a man down, mock him, slap him around, lynch him; whereas, I choose the side that uplifts, inspires, and builds a man.
I thought we were supposed to debate ideas while the conservatives engaged in mean-spirited name calling.
Could someone please give me a link to the Manifesto so that I can be as nasty and repulsive as the rest of you?
I’m just trying to learn.
Love to all,
Salt
Considering Hill’s allegations against Thomas have been corroborated by at least three credible witnesses, and considering the character assassination campaign against Anita Hill perpetrated by the right(which went on for a LONG time after Thomas was confirmed), and considering Cosby’s condescension and mockery towards the black lower and middle class, I’d say you have it the exact wrong way around, Xslave.
Jay is merely trying to obstruct discussion.
The fact Thomas rarely comments or questions during SC hearings is extremely telling; remember, cases that reach the SC are those where lower courts have had significant disagreement. To fail to question both sides of the argument means you’ve made up your mind before the arguments have been heard.
Nor was Thomas qualified for the SC–he had one year’s experience in the judiciary. The rest of his career was spent in administration at Monsanto and at the EEOC (which had huge sexual harrassment scandals during his tenure).
“mike in dc said:
Jay
1. Thomas doesn’t participate in oral argument except for once, on the topic of cross-burning. He apparently feels it’s a waste of time. In the whole history of the Court, I’m not aware of another Justice who had this attitude.”
Another one is William O. Douglas.
Thurgood Marshall had little use for oral arguments. And Justice Ginzberg regularly falls asleep during oral arguments.
Anita Hill is the trash you are talking about, in the last paragraph of the illiterate screed above. You’re not fit to shine Clarence Thomas’s shoes.
I would like to see if there is anybody that can actually (on their own) offer up an actual criticism of one of Thomas’s court opinions and justify with that, why he doesn’t deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.
Ever since Harry Reid tried and failed, they’ve gone right back to “uppity” and “plantation”. This just might be the most hateful racist thread on this site since the whole “filthy” incident. Congrats O Dub.
Well Jay, if Thomas is such an independent thinker then can you cite a single ruling where he dissented from Scalia? Maybe it is that herd mentality thing for which conservatives are so infamous.
The problem with Thomas is that he has a major axe to grind with liberal thought, something that the majority in the this country support. Having ill feelings towards any group, let alone making them known, makes him unfit to render unbiased decisions.
daveinboca,
got anything besides ad hominem?
didn’t think so.
Thomas votes with Scalia 91% of the time. That may or may not be unprecedented, but it’s my impression that’s it fairly unusual for lawyers to be in agreement that frequently.
Hill never wrote a book trashing Thomas…unlike Thomas, who has just written a book trashing Hill.
All class, that guy. Subsequent research has shown her allegations to be credible, and at least three credible witnesses have supported her aallegations regarding her conduct.
Check out Media Matters these guys don’t have anything besides ad hominem and twisting things out of context.
I just keep reading this site so I can see when Oliver gets tired of being a liberal.
You’re not fit to shine Clarence Thomas’s shoes.
RACIST!!!1111!!!
Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee
Thomas is protected by the fair report privilege, and the senators are protected by their absolute privilege for statements made during Senate proceedings. What is Thomas supposed to do? Pretend the statements were never made?
Categorizing Hill’s performance as mediocre is either non-defamatory opinion, or protected under the public/private interest privilege.
Saying she’s not “the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed” is hardly defamatory, because it not being as demure, as religious, or as conservative as one particular portrayal can hardly lower one’s reputation in a community. And further, it is not a statement of fact but an opinion, because there are no factual standards for demureness, religiosity, or conservatism.
I just keep reading this site so I can see when Oliver gets tired of being a liberal.
I imagine you really keep reading this site because there’s only so long you can read the same five talking points on the conservative blogs before you fall asleep with boredom.
Tom is one crazy black man. He won…no one that voted him on the court believed Ms. Hill. He got the job…a job for life…Tom will be interperting the laws that govern over 300 million people for maybe 30 more years…and he appears to still be bitter…that’s just crazy.
Actually, the one thing MM is really good for is recording statements made, in their full context. Whenever MM notes something Bill-O, Rush, Hannity et al said, they include both a transcript and a video or audio clip.
It’s just a matter of using the right-wing blowhards own words, in their proper context, to bury them.
They’ve been making it awfully easy lately, too.
I would like to see if there is anybody that can actually (on their own) offer up an actual criticism of one of Thomas’s court opinions and justify with that, why he doesn’t deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.
There are so many…
Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995, Thomas joined the majority in overturning a lower court’s order to increase spending in Kansas City’s predominantly black school system to foster integration by attracting more white, suburban students. The court majority ruled that the funding plan went beyond the scope of the city’s long-standing desegregation order, but Thomas went further by claiming Brown v Topeka Board of Ed. was wrong because “‘Racial isolation’ itself is not a harm. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.”
Or how about Hudson v. McMillan, a 1992 case where Thomas–in the minority–argued that beating a shackled inmate is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Oh, I forgot one of my favorites. US v Fordice, 1992, a case where it was determined the state of MS had not done enough to integrate its state schools and universities. Thomas wrote that integrating MS colleges might have an impact on historically black colleges and universities.
Thomas doesn’t participate in oral argument except for once, on the topic of cross-burning. He apparently feels it’s a waste of time. In the whole history of the Court, I’m not aware of another Justice who had this attitude.
A. This is nonsense. While Thomas doesn’t regularly participate during oral arguments, claiming he only did so once is nonsense.
B. His participation in oral arguments has nothing to do with his skills as a jurist.
Thomas votes with Scalia 91% of the time. That may or may not be unprecedented, but it’s my impression that’s it fairly unusual for lawyers to be in agreement that frequently.
Another ridiculous factoid. Ginsburg and Souter vote with each other 90% of the time. What I am suppose to take from that? Is Souter pulling the strings or Ginsburg?
claiming Brown v Topeka Board of Ed. was wrong because “‘Racial isolation’ itself is not a harm. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.” “‘Racial isolation’ itself is not a harm. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.”
First of all, Thomas’s comments were not directed specifically at the Brown vs. Board of Ed decision, but rather the way in which the court has handled the issue of segregation post 1954. And ff you’re going to quote it, quote it correctly:
“Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the end of de jure segregation,” he wrote. ” ‘Racial isolation’ itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based upon a theory of black inferiority.”
Or how about Hudson v. McMillan, a 1992 case where Thomas–in the minority–argued that beating a shackled inmate is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Sigh. It’s hard to have conversations with people that choose to engage in such pathetic intellectual dishonesty. The case had nothing to do with “shackled inmates.” Thomas merely reasoned that excessive force against an inmate, while criminal and morally wrong, didn’t rise to the constitutional standard of “cruel and unusual.” Here is what he wrote:
In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not “cruel and unusual punishment.” In concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents.
Until recent years, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause was not deemed to apply at all to deprivations that were not inflicted as part of the sentence for a crime. For generations, judges and commentators regarded the Eighth Amendment as applying only to torturous punishments meted out by statutes or sentencing judges, and not generally to any hardship that might befall a prisoner during incarceration…..When we cut the Eighth Amendment loose from its historical moorings and applied it to a broad range of prison deprivations, we found it appropriate to make explicit the limitations….Abusive behavior by prison guards is deplorable conduct that properly evokes outrage and contempt. But that does not mean that it is invariably unconstitutional. The Eighth Amendment is not, and should not be turned into, a National Code of Prison Regulation….
Anybody else? Really. I’m looking for some clear concise arguments. Claiming such attacks on Clarence Thomas are reasonable because he doesn’t dissent from Scalia is pretty fucking lame.
“Another ridiculous factoid. Ginsburg and Souter vote with each other 90% of the time. What I am suppose to take from that? Is Souter pulling the strings or Ginsburg?”
In the 2006 term, Thomas and Fat Tony voted together 88.8% of the time. Ginsburg and Breyer voted together 79% of the time.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/nov06/statistics06.pdf
Damn that liberal…Harvard Law Review!!!
“Oliver uses ad hominem like a pro”
For a right-winger, and Jay in particular, to accuse someone of ad hominem is laughable. It would be like Dubya accusing someone of not reading newspapers more often.
“Thomas’s duty is not to “work in the interest of his own people” but in the interest of all Americans.”
Which he doesn’t do either. He works in the interest of rich white people, same as all Republicans.
“I would like to see if there is anybody that can actually (on their own) offer up an actual criticism of one of Thomas’s court opinions and justify with that, why he doesn’t deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.”
According to the right-wing attacks on judicial activism, YOU think he doesn’t deserve to sit on the SCOTUS. That is, you would if you actually had ANY principles or any shame whatsoever.
Thomas has voted to overturn more Congressional laws than any other justice. This is what conservatives describe as “activism” as the only other option for the justice is to uphold the law as Constitutional.
But we all know that the “activism” screed is bullshit, and now you’ve confirmed it. “Activism,” like “ad hominem,” “bias” and “anti-American” are simply meaningless codewords for “liberal” and nothing more.
Jay said, “I’m looking for some clear concise arguments.”
Since when? You’re a right-wing mouthpiece regurgitating the same ol’ ditto-head talking points.
Thomas would not have gotten into Harvard were it not for the affirmative action quotes that he then turned around and opposes for other black people. Shouldn’t they be a little perturbed by that?
He also votes to overturn more laws than any other justice.
He blames everyone else for his own problems, and regularly claims victimhood while rejecting such arguments from others.
He is a hypocrite and a right-wing tool.
So naturally, he’s your hero.
“Just can’t stand those uppity blacks leaving your plantation.”
In keeping with that analogy, Thomas hasn’t left the plantation. He has left his fellow blacks in the fields while he has gone to the manor. And while those other blacks DO try to leave the plantation, Thomas opposes providing them with any assistance, even the assistance that the food and clothes that he himself received, every step of the way.
“Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the end of de jure segregation,” he wrote.
Well, then, he’s in trouble right outta the gate. When has there ever been “de facto segregation unaccompanies by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources”?
History shows all too well that where segregation exists, those inequalities invariably follow. He might as well be arguing that falling off of a 500 foot cliff won’t kill you, but the sudden stop at the end is a problem.
Jay lies several times.
In Hudson v McMillan–Hudson was an inmate at a LA prison. He was shackled, taken to a remote area of the prison and had the crap beaten out of him by several armed guards. Further, Thomas seemed to suggest any sort of beating was fine so long as it it did not incur lasting damage.
WRT Jenkins v Missouri, Thomas did indeed attack Brown v Topeka Bd of Ed by essentially saying separate but equal is good enough.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180289132
wow. Not believing in stare decisis (when even Scalia won’t go that far) is bad enough.
But forcing your clerks to watch The Fountainhead every year is beyond the pale.
FAN OF RUSH LIMBAUGH, AYN RAND
Well, that just says it all, doesn’t it?
Thomas seemed to suggest any sort of beating was fine so long as it it did not incur lasting damage.
In the words of Lt. Ripley, Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?!? That is most definitly NOT what Thomas was suggesting, any more than a judge who throws out an un-Mirandized confession suggests that Murder is peachy keen. In small words even you could understand, Thomas says that while Hudson has many avenues of retribution, the 8th Amendment isn’t one of them. And he bases this ruling on … stare decisis!!!
Thomas seemed to suggest any sort of beating was fine so long as it it did not incur lasting damage.
That is most definitly NOT what Thomas was suggesting, any more than a judge who throws out an un-Mirandized confession suggests that Murder is peachy keen.
OK, let’s rewrite Jade’s statement to be a little more precise:
Thomas did not “seem to suggest”, he wrote plainly that a retaliatory beating by prison guards does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” if the injuries from the beating aren’t severe.
This assumes that only lasting physical injury constitutes objective harm. I don’t think we would accept this definition in any other facet of civilized society. The threat of random physical beatings constitutes harm all by itself.
If you don’t agree, we’ll make arrangements to put the question to a carefully controlled test.
Wow, you really get the D-list trolls on here Oliver.
You need another re-write Quaker:
Thomas wrote plainly that a retaliatory beating by prison guards does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined by hundreds of years of previous Court holdings (aka stare decisis) if the injuries from the beating aren’t severe.
Your update does not change the meaning, Farris.
And “hundreds of years”? That’s a bit overstated. He and the majority both cited the same previous cases in their opinions. However, only Thomas concluded that the absence of severe physical harm is no harm at all.
However, only Thomas concluded that the absence of severe physical harm is no harm at all.
No that’s not what he concluded. His words are right up there for everybody to read yet people are still getting it wrong.
No that’s not what he concluded. His words are right up there for everybody to read yet people are still getting it wrong.
Shall I cite him and embarrass you again, Jay?
Here ya go, hotshot:
His words are indeed “right up there for everybody to read.”
I’ll just lay some basic comments down. I’m from Philadelphia area and this area is very. well almost segregated, to be honest. For example, on local television there was a Democrat group of people shown walking and a Republican group of people walking in the city and the Dems were all Black and the Republicans all White. And the life experiences, way of talking is very different, etc. So I see Clarence Thomas as the exception to the rule, almost like Eminem is an exception. When the Blacks in the music industry see Eminem it looks like they welcome him as an equal. Likewise, Judge Thomas is welcomed by Whites as “one of them.” One thing I noticed Judge Thomas didnt do is have children with his White wife. This seems to be the thing that really rattles peoples chains; the whole inter-racial kid thing. Also, I would have to say from a White person’s point of view Judge Thomas does seem like a heck of a nice dude, so maybe his persona is aimed at Whites. Kabish?
Like the previous comment about Clarence Thomas,and I agree totally to what Robinson said. We have a serious problem in the black community where you have the majority of these uppity black people who think they know it all but out of there and away from there white counterparts,they wouldn’t get other blacks the time of day nor lift one finger in support. Clarence Thomas is one of them..one of those technological Uncle Toms that would stab another soul brother in the back just to support his own cause while kissing whitey’s ass just to save his own. In other words,Thomas is one of those field hands who would get the other slaves hell in the fields and gets all the glory while the others suffered. Yeah,he may have come up from the South hard(just like any other African-American that came up in the segregated parts of the South),but he forgot when you throw a rope to help one,this n***er forget to throw the rope back. What a sell-out!!!