At least there will be one positive result from the SCOTUS ruling yesterday promoting segregation - Clarence Thomas will of course resign.
As an honorable man who is convinced that there is no place for racial considerations in the U.S., he will quit the court immediately. Every sentient, honest person knows that his race was a factor in his appointment to occupy the African-American seat on the Supreme Court. Reasonable people can disagree as to how important a factor it was, but there is no denying that it played a role in his selection.
I am sure that George Bush will be delighted to choose the best available candidate for his replacement.
I know you are joking but it's not a very good joke.
Posted by: rick | June 29, 2007 at 08:33 PM
I don't expect him to do it - but if he declares the way he was appointed unconstitutional, shouldn't he? Do you think that his race had nothing to do with his selection?
Posted by: bbbustard | June 30, 2007 at 02:25 PM
The Supreme Court upholds the equal protection clause and fixes that which is profoundly flawed and you view it as promoting segregation? How utterly strange! And, this causes you to tie completely different strings together and declare Thomas unfit to be on the high court? Let me see if I understand this. A black conservative 'originalist' on the high court is there to fill a sort of quota seat and a left leaning 'fairness doctrine' black justice would be there for his constitutional scholarliness? I thought so.
Posted by: rick | June 30, 2007 at 03:14 PM
It's actually not that diffcult. 1. SCOTUS declares it is unconstitutional for race to be a factor.
2. Thomas' race was a factor in his selection.
3. Thomas's appointment was unconstituional.
Thomas is clearly not an originalist (see his views on abortion for example), He is a radical activist. But this is irrelevant. His appointment, influenced as it was by his race, was fatlly flawed. If he were an honest man he would resign.
He won't, because he isn't.
Posted by: bbbustard | July 01, 2007 at 08:47 AM
Thomas is an superb example of an original intentor. You clearly do not know what a radical activist is nor do you know what constitutes an originalist. His views on abortion are what? The framers expressed their views on abortion to be what and he disagrees with them in what way? You have no evidence that his appointment was race influenced at all. You simply declare it to be true because you disagree with him. Thomas was correct in his assessment of matters nearly 20 years ago when he said that many Americans would always regard him as nothing more than an "uppity nigger". Sadly, to this very day, blacks must have a certain political bend to be regarded as worthy. If they do not fit the mold, they are regarded as window dressing or Uncle Toms. I, personally, believe they are free to express views as diversely different as those opinions held by Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. Those who believe they should only express views similar to Marshall's are, uh, well; why don't you just select a descriptive word that you are comfortable with?
Posted by: rick | July 01, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Further, why don't you find anything Thomas has written since he has sat on the high court; any ruling, whether for the majority or in descent, any opinion; any paragraph; any sentence; and illustrate how it was wrong? Not something you disagree with philosophically, but something that is fundamentally wrong or in error. Something that would allow you to say "because of this, he does not belong on the court". Take any 10 or 20 or 30 words and show where he was wrong. When you claim that someone does not belong on the court, a rational person will ask why. It's not to farfetched for a rational person to expect you to provide a reason. Since you mentioned abortion, that may be a good place to start. But you are certainly not limited to that subject. You declared him to be dishonest. You must have evidence of dishonesty, otherwise it is name calling. So, what dishonesty? That's a serious charge to level. You are aware that I believe you to confuse the words lie and disagree? No? I have never found any Thomas detractor to provide the 'why'. Ever! I have never found any thing more than the vitriolic gnashings leveled at black conservatives from the left. Why does the left refuse to let them stray from their 'plantations'?
Posted by: rick | July 01, 2007 at 08:41 PM
I'm surprised. Usually you're a pretty honest guy- Not on this one. Your argument that I cannot prove that race was a factor in the selection of Thomas is just silly obfuscation. Not only did the A.B.A. fail to call him "well qualified" he was rated between "qualified" and "poorly qualified." Unless you believe that his race was one of his qualifications, then the appointment makes no sense. In contrast,Alito and Roberts both received unanimous ratings of "well qualified. from the ABA. I do not expect him to resign, but I do think your argument is beneath you.
Posted by: bbbustard | July 01, 2007 at 08:48 PM
The American Bar Association? That's what you have been referring to? Good grief man! They are about as nonpartisan as the N. R. A. or the A. C. L. U. And, not honest on this one? Is that the same as Thomas's dishonesty for which I had hoped you would provide an example? And, is that the same is the overarching lies, lies, lies deal which seams to always be a central theme? Or, could you possibly mean that we disagree on this one? Think about it for a moment. Be honest now.
I can understand your consternation and grief as the court moves towards, what I believe to be, the founding principles. But, if you are wanting to illustrate how undeserving a particular justice is, you are better served to have some specificity. It'll make you look smarter. And, if you have something in particular that Thomas has said or written that is in error, I would be delighted to read about it. Your assertion that he fills the 'token black' (After all, what else could you possibly mean?) spot on the high court is not a provable matter. I do not doubt that you would prefer the 'token black' on the court would lean your direction. Again, after nearly twenty years on the court, you have no specificly 'wrong' opinions? Sort of like believing Bill Gates to be a failure because he dropped out of college and did not have very good grades to boot. Lucky him though, the A. B. A did not rate him.
Posted by: rick | July 02, 2007 at 04:22 PM
I always am impressed at your impassioned dodges. Again, not a difficult question - was race a factor in Thomas's nomination? I did not say token black, and I did not discuss his behavior on the court. You can huff and puff all that you want about the liberal ABA, but in point of fact they gave unanimous ratings of well qualified to both Alito and Roberts. They may or may not be a liberal group - but what does seem clear is that they try to give impartial, honest, ratings to nominees. I realize that as your conservatism prevents you from believing in honesty nor impartiality, which is one of the reasons that your side is so spectacularly incapable at governing.
Do you think race was a factor in his selection or not?
Posted by: bbbustard | July 02, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Of course not.
Posted by: rick | July 02, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Do you believe that one plus one equals two?
Posted by: bbbustard | July 03, 2007 at 11:21 AM
You are able to look into a person’s soul and know whether or not they are racist or lying. I am in awe. But, I do not possess that gift. You have looked into Bush 41’s heart and know what he is thinking. I beg you this favor. Explain David Souter. Was he thinking “first I’ll go with this pasty white liberal so no one will notice the poorly qualified black guy I really want in there”?
The left does not like Thomas. He is the worst kind of conservative; a black conservative. He has committed the unforgivable. He has strayed. So they tell themselves he would not be on the high court were he not black. They have said it so many times that they begin to believe it to be true. It borders on conspiracy belief and is really not very far from the ‘grassy knoll’. It is an impossibility to appoint ANY black conservative to the court without the left screaming they have been railroaded. NOBODY. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They will declare it an effort to pack the court and vilify the appointee. Why? They perceive it to be more difficult to stand against a minority appointment. They believe it will make the lip service they have been giving minorities all these years look like lip service.
Surely you understand this. It is not complicated. You are free to dislike Thomas and believe anything you want to believe about him. You simply want me to believe that your truth is my truth. It is not.
Posted by: Rick | July 03, 2007 at 02:28 PM
So you do believe in the tooth fairy.
Clarence Thomas was not well qualified to be on the Supreme Court,unless his race is a factor. There were thousands of people more qualified.
One of the problems with this administration is that it believes that it can just make up reality; and it seems that you too suffer from this ailment. There is not your truth and my truth. There is truth. True, I cannot know it absolutely, just as I cannot know absolutely that the earth spins. But I can reach a conclusion based on available evidence. Am I 100% certain? No. Is my explanation enormously more likely to be true than yours? Yes.
You have this weird double standard of accusing me of knowing other people's hearts and minds - as if you don't make the same types of arguments. You know that the Wilson's are...., You know why liberals......,How do you know I dislike Thomas?
Posted by: bbbustard | July 03, 2007 at 06:53 PM
OK then, you like him.
I do not know how Mesdames tolerates you. She is a saint for certain.
Happy 4th to she and thee.
Posted by: rick | July 03, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Mme's sainthood notwithstanding, your declaration that I like Clarence Thomas is almost as preposterous as your position that race was not a factor in his nomination. Are there other parts of reality which you choose to ignore?
One other assumption that I'll make is also a wish - that you're having a great Fourth and barbecuing something amazing.
Posted by: bbbustard | July 04, 2007 at 05:39 PM