60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations
Download | play 
Download | play
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 Minutes yesterday to promote his book, My Grandfather's Son, and he had some just odd things to say about his critics. When asked why there was so much controversy about his nomination to the highest court in the land, his answer: abortion. Huh? While he is correct that there was an overriding concern amongst Democrats of the time that a conservative majority would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I think it's a vast oversimplification to put the focus solely on that.
But then again, Thomas has a habit of making strange oversimplifications and assertions. As Marty Kaplan recounts:
But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas' biographer, Ken Foskett, that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If you think nutcase is too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court book, The Nine:
TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.'
Here's the UN-SHOCKING REVELATION FROM CLARENCE THOMAS’ INTERVIEW: ‘MY GRANDADDY BEAT ME SENSELESS’
This guy is a nightmare!
when scalia thinks your extreme, something is wrong
thomas has no soul
O'Reilly just said, "Paris Hilton getting drilled by David Letterman. Believe me, I know what that feels like."
We have George Bush, Sr. to thank for putting Clarence Thomas, who is so unqualified to be SC justice, in the Supreme Court.
Clarence Uncle Thomas is mentally ill. PERIOD!
I can't believe this guy made it past the 5th grade! Let alone the supreme court!
scalia said he wasn't a nut. i disagree.
This is a common result of GOP conservative martyr syndrome, or as we learned in the 3rd grade, not getting your way all the time. It's usually acompanied by embarassing physical ailments, not unlike goat polio, as well as pointedly stupid debates about nothing (see Ann Coulter) and a ludicrous absence of common sense.
Unlike Goat Polio, spillage and pissing is more common in adult conservatives than in kids. It is entirely possible to introduce this silly behavior into a previously uninfected herd by feeding silage, sudden changes in kind of feed, parasitism, dramatic weather changes, and advanced stages of pregnancy, or shit-kicking defenseless dead people by pinhead pundits.
Symptoms include depression of common sense, decreased appetite for obvious onion dips, beaver fever, leaning or stumbling or moving in one direction only while lollygagging, head pulled to flank with rigid neck during oral sex, facial paralysis on one side due to oral sex, slack jaw mouth breathing, and drooling during Republican primaries. Diarrhea is present when conservative principles or so-called “family values” are instigated while lacking any discernable point or value. Embracing GOP talking points can be mistaken for rabies. Immediate treatment is critical - Recovery is more "iffy" than with Goat Polio.
The exact manner in which both republican ideology and Goat Polio affect the average pinhead is not well understood at this time. Treatment involves administration of high doses of boot leather to the dumb ass of the victim every six minutes for three to five days, then daily for an additional seven days. Forty-thousand IU per kg of body weight of common sense is needed to cross the blood brain barrier and put sufficient amounts of grey matter into the tissue of the dope’s central nervous system. Remember that one kilogram (kg) equals 2.2 pounds.
Funny, if you look at one of his opinions he wrote a while back, he cited Plessy v. Ferguson and essentially agreed with "separate but equal" I will see if I can find it and provide a link.
So his father is his grandfather, too? Oh my!
It doesn't matter the color, he's just another "Conservative without a Conscience". Or soul.
He's part of the powerful Supremes in a era of low respect for them. This is what happens when you have republiCONs getting "judges" to the SCOTUS.
What a pathetic fool!
This is what I found so far - http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_9191.shtml Still looking! I did not know many law professors who liked Thomas.
Carl Gordon:
Your comment puts you in the C&L Hall of FAME!!!
deez nuts
That is, by farm the wittiest, funniest and most on-point entry to this blog in quite some time. Thankfully, I had swallowed my soda and crackers before reading that.
Thank you.
NPR had a great discussion of the Supreme Court this morning. I think it was the Diane Rehm show. I think they said that about 10 years ago the supreme court heard about 158 cases a year. This past year the supreme court broke a record for the FEWEST cases heard ever - 68. Too busy writing books I suppose. Or following in the foot steps of the Prez who is breaking vacation records.
And as for Clarence Thomas... isn't this "there's a pubic hair on the coke can" Clarence Thomas? Maybe he forgot that part of the controversy.
He Never Answered The Is He A Uncle Tom Question
A judge of his caliber should know the difference between giving a answer to a question verses giving a statement. We know he does not care what others, in this case blacks are the other, think. I thought we could get an answer to the question.
Because Clarance Thomas is a Black Republican, I have good understanding of the history associated with his being. Enjoy
Actually this was a paper I wrote for a school project. It contains some interesting points.
Joseph
Ricky Bones @ 10:
He cited Plessy to make a point about one of his decisions? Yeesh. What a turd. And an antique one at that. Too bad he's not 91 or something.
I have an Uncle Tom.
My Uncle Tom has always looked out for me, defended me, bought me ice cream and told me dirty jokes when my mom wasn't around.
My Uncle Tom has is a role model, and one of the coolest guys that I have ever met.
I have known my Uncle Tom my entire life, and you, Sir, are no Uncle Tom.
Is Stare Decisis in the Constitution?
Look, I take issues all around with Thomas, but to say that he isnt qualified is just crazy. He's far more qualified than than the one single woman who remains on the Court, and I dont see none of you criticizing her! And to an extent, he's right: The Lynching of his whole confirmation was all because of abortion. Abortion, the one stupid issue that has destroyed our politics on both sides of the isles.
Just because we dont agree with Thomas, that doesnt give us the right to lynch him like a Jim Crow mob.
A self-loathing black man does not belong on the US Supreme Court. Neither does an ivy league white racist, a Catholic mafioso, a stenographer for the right wing and a Walt Disney cartoon for a Chief Justice.
Guy Fawkes @ 5:
is that worse than prescott openly supporting hitler
or
gwbJr acting like hitler's second coming?
David Brock's account of the Thomas hearings in "Blinded by the Right" is well worth reading if you havent. Brock presents substantial evidence of, among other things, Thomas's porn habits.
Also on Shuster (Tucker) today Gene Robinson misspoke, saying Thomas hasnt penned any major decisions of the Court. That is incorrect. Thomas wrote the very controversial and harshly criticized decision of the Court affirming the rights of agribusinesses to patent genetically modified organisms. That decision (I think in 1990) empowered companies like Monsanto to wage their global war on family and organic farming, with devastating results.
Actually, he's just a hypocrite. He didn't mind affirmative action when it benefitted him in law school and early in his carreer. He's a puke pure and simple
When you gather together the pundits, GOP knob-gobblers, sinners and other violators of the conservative cardinal rules regarding mortal and venial sins against howeveris currently on the T.V., you’re bound to spill, in this case, on soil, in water, accompanied by plant litter of a green skunk smelling variety, silage of both serious and silly types, and even in a goat's digestive tract. This neo-con practice is known to multiply well in cold temperatures, especially when considering the amount of coordination necessary for the average republican male to both balance his respective alcoholic drink of choice and the sophisticated and precise movements required when taking out his rather shriveled apparatus in order to allow free flowage of urine. Both complex movements and the necessary un-impaired status of the brain in order to pull these functions off without embarrassment or ridicule are seldom seen simultaneously in the same herd. However, once they open their mouths, the crap can be shed in the host’s garden, restroom facilities, or in the case of certain individuals prone to not sufficiently weeding out potential bad apples, in a bedroom closet or swimming pool, and Ms. Coulter's bed if you get a chance to. Like Goat Polio, unprovoked urinating is most often seen in intensive management situations and repressed sexual feelings circa the 2nd grade.
OK, WTF is Stare Decisis?
Jymn,
Now, that's funny!
O'Reilly, the inadvertent comedian.
BaScOmBe @ 27:
It basically means accepting precedence. That decisions of the court become common law.
I don't see what the photo of the maniacal zombie used here has to do with Clarence Thoma... oh god...
BaScOmBe @ 23:
They really do have a family legacy, don't they?!
I actually like the guy. I like the way he defended himself during the Anita Hill case.
[Please don't flame this guy. He's entitled to this opinion-Sitemonitor]
a guy @ 25:
thomas is too old to have benefitted from affirmative action. That's one of his peeves. He viscerally resents affirmative action like a pox. He resents any implication that race was a reason for his advancement. If you have not seen his confirmation hearings, they are a must. The camera was angled to show his wife, sitting behind him so supportively.
tia chi @ 32:
Well hello there, morally bankrupt slime!
FastMovingCloud @ 29:
Thanks.
BaScOmBe @ 35:
Anytime.
tia chi @ 32:
I promise no flame
Please elucidate. Was it Thomas' stand on the myth of the black man's penis size or his weak denial of the sexual harassment allegations? Or was it another part?
There was a clip in 60 minutes of him telling the board that this is a circus... basically a high-tech lynching. During that interview I found him to be very intelligent and thought provoking.
Carl Gordon @ 26:
So essentially, the war on christmas is a conservative hoax and they are just jerking us around?
Carl Gordon @ 26:
Carl, you're fucking killing me! Whatever it is you were doing yesterday, please start your own blog. This is a little like stream of consciousness writing, but it's stream of hysteria!
tia chi @ 38:
that's a self-hating black man using the race card. I saw the hearings too!
oh yeah, another thing he said during the interview that was interesting.. ." I was never a liberal, I found that to be luke-warm. A radical maybe..."
I don't care for the guy. He lets his ego get in the way too often, I think, to be as effective as his considerable intelligence would allow.
But he is right... affirmative action will diminish the accomplishments of minorities (that they CAN in fact, achieve on their own) as long as it exists. The problem is that we need a certain amount of social and financial equity before we can get rid of it. That's in the future Clarence, and you dang well know it. Arrogant bastard. As we all know, both of those factors are MORE out of balance now that a few years ago.
Whether he really did keep blathering to coworkers: "Hey, lookie! A pubic hair in my coke!" or "Call me Long Dong Silver!" Meh. Maybe not. But he is arrogant enough to say it and then think he could get away with it later. If so, he was right.
Cythraul @ 30:
Thanks for the belly laugh!
As for Justice Thomas, call the whaaambulance. He's been on the court all this time despite the best efforts of his opponents. A normal human would gloat, or try his best to prove that his detractors wrong. Instead he chooses to go into a prolonged sulk. Real mature. But then again, if Scalia says you're nuts....
What redeeming qualities does the man possess? Is he the white conservative's dream because he opposed Affirmative Action? Maybe he should take his 1.5 million dollar advance and send it to the UNCF.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 43:
Thats speculative, what's more important is that it provides opportunites that might otherwise be denied those qualified.
How do we get rid of these nutjobs? How do we do it without destroying so much more? Maybe by imposing a term of stay on the high court. At least it will get these whackos gone sooner rather than just letting them sit there until they die.
We are truly fucked as a nation if these clowns are the best we have. Another public institution destroyed by the Conservatives/Republicans as I went from thinking the Supreme Court was above all this political crap to now thinking they're some of the biggest assholes in our government.
Too think of all the important decisions involved since his tenure began. Abortion? And on top of that, narrowly defining his life still as a seeming constant struggle. It's sad. His position in life now is too help alleviate struggle and confusion. To smooth citizens lives as an orderly, strictly progressing, justifiably free, wonder for all too envy in this world. He righteously holds no animosity for those who've helped him in this life, but also seemingly holds no interest in needed knowledge for those who've only watched. And chose to run from something too black and too strong. It's an amazing thing when a person no longer fears those things that shame them. A normal person would learn to accept them, not fear them. A normal person moves on from those things, and be cool despite them. An abnormal person holds on to the shameful things, constantly fighting against them. It's evident by the constant tell-told battles against them I heard throughout the interview. Leading questions, heck yeah, the interviewer didn't speak enough actually. It was boring. Boring and sad.
Yes, yes, Thomas and Scalia, the self-proclaimed textualists and originalists. And yet, abortion, to them, there is no protection of unenumerated rights. This flies in the face of the text of the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that judges MUST NOT CONSTRUE the Constitution in precisely the manner Scalia and Thomas construe it.
For an interesting story (heh, I find it interesting, but I'm vain ;) ) I wrote a paper in law school about how textualism demands protecting unenumerated rights, and how it could be done. I feared somewhat having to turn it in --- to Prof. John Yoo. Because of some medical conditions with which I struggled, I had to turn it in late, meaning I'd be off the curve in the class, and accept a "Pass" only. Turns out, he thought so highly of my theory and logic that he insisted that I receive the highest grade possible in the class, despite the school's otherwise strict policy of adding top honors to an already set curve.
So to sum up, Thomas is wrong on the Constitution. Always has been.
Have a Coke and a smile.
I know firsthand (from one of his law school classmates, and in speaking with two of his professors) that Clarence Thomas was a terrible student at Yale Law, had to repeat courses, and barely completed the curriculum.
BTW... Thomas absolutely benefited from an affirmative action program at Holy Cross, notwithstanding the comment above.
SwarmofKillerMonkeys hit the nail on the head. Potentially affirmative action is dangerous and eventually should be phased out. He thinks that we should be judged on our merits, where is the flaw in that? We may not be there now but the pursuit of happiness, I hope, will eventually be on a more even playing field. I find Clarence to be using logic more than what people would like to hear.
Another question, why do we always play into the Least Common Denominator in this country? I think that is where it breaks down. Every socio-economic group can come up with a few reasons they think quantifies them as the LCD (except white males, of course)
Clarence Thomas = Ron Paul in blackface
Seriously, how does Thomas' strict constructionism, his absolute adherence to the original text of the constitution, differ from Ron Paul's libertarian, states' rights views?
There is no difference.
People who love Ron Paul ought to take a close look at this guy, and what he wants to do with the established laws of the United States. Ron Paul and Clarence Thomas want to get rid of federal civil rights laws (including voting rights), federal regulation of industry and the environment (goodbye Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act), the FCC, you name it.
BTW, stare decisis, the principle of established precedent in law, has been one of the most basic and respected principles of Common Law for hundreds of years, long before the US constitution was written.
soothsayer @ 51:
If this is true: then doesn't it prove that affirmative action does NOT work?
AnthonyMason2k5 @ 21:
That would depend on your definition of the term "judicial power."
Well, he has a law degree, and he's no dummy. But as judicial minds go, he's staggeringly mediocre.
He's far more qualified than than the one single woman who remains on the Court, and I dont see none of you criticizing her!
I have a great deal of respect for Justice Ginsburg. Why do you believe she is unqualified (or at least less qualified than Thomas)?
Heh, I agree that abortion is likely foremost on people's minds during Supreme Court confirmation hearings, whether people say so or not. And I do wish people would be honest about it. But that would include Thomas. He actually said that he had never thought about or discussed Roe during his confirmation hearing. Come on.
Moreover, it's hardly a "stupid issue." I understand why people feel so strongly about it, on both sides, though I know which side I'm on.
Nor does it give you (or Thomas himself) to use over-the-top metaphors that impute violent racism onto his opponents.
Annoyed Canuck @ 53:
It doesn't really. I hasten to note, though, that neither are strict constructionists, and neither adhere to the text of the Constitution. Though I do like your phrasing, "adherence to the original text of the Constitution." That would actually describe what they do, since they pay little attention to some very crucial amendments.
There's nothing textualist about ignoring the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
He wrote a book no one is going to read. Who gives a shit about this Uncle Tom except the republican slave masters that keep this man in check? Be gone back into obscurity and hope you don't run into Samuel Jackson who will strike vengeance upon thee.
[deleted]
StirFry @ 57:
Sorry, I don't think the Hollywood actor would get very far. The Justice has "real" guards with "real bullets" :)
I think the guy is a typical moralising, elitist, heartless conservative. But I will not use his race to further demonise him, as many of you are doing.
I think they need to change the constitution on the supreme court. It should be a 10 year term - not a life term.
Ali @ 61:
Hmmm. I could go for a 25-year term. I think 10 years promote too much turn-over, and little stability in the law.
odanny @ 46:
You are right. I phrased that wrong. It should have been:
"Affirmative action DOES diminish the accomplishments of minorities in the eyes of a large number (or most, depending on the poll) Americans."
There. Unfortunately, no longer speculative, but true.
I still think that as long as the wealth is going the wrong direction into the top 1% (accelerating actually -- top 0.5% now?) things will be too tight at the bottom. Racism thrives on ignorance and poverty. If we just make headway on those two, the need for Affirmative Action will evaporate, in my opinion.
As above, "Uncle Tom" is a pretty damn harsh phrase. I don't think it applies here. I still like "arrogant bastard" better.
Why was my post #58 deleted?
I can't remember what I said, so I'd appreciate some clarification
A black conservative is deadly to the liberal ideaology, blacks are supposed to be completely dependent on libs for subsistance
If blacks are supposed to be liberal (as I am) because of their historical circumstances, does that mean whites have to be conservative oppressors, as the logic of your racialised dichotomy suggests?
By your logic then, most whites in this forum are race traitors.
Clarence was the beginning of the betrayals of America by our Democratic representatives. They should have gotten a clue & a backbone when he was being interviewed, but they failed us again, and now this nut case is in power, doing what the Repugs want him to do.
If not an Uncle, a Steppin for Bush's neocons, for sure.
chill clarence. have a coke and put on the porn.
Karen @ 55: He's far more qualified than than the one single woman who remains on the Court, and I dont see none of you criticizing her!
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
Site Monitor: To be clear, because we don't want a flame war started on a misunderstanding, Karen was quoting another poster. That is NOT her statement.
Carl Gordon @ 9:
[deleted--please consult the commenting policy. Posts made with the intent to insult or incite a flame war are subject to editing. You were not edited for ideology, but because you are unable to make your point civilly.]
soothsayer @ 69:
Man. I'm gettin the popcorn. This oughtta be good...
and he was the best candidate for the supreme court? isn't that the most basic question?
soothsayer @ 69:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
soothsayer @ 69:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
Soothsayer... Ginsburg was a bag-lady for the ACLU. Her views do not reflect the mainstream of America IN ANY TIME PERIOD.
Just a few of her lowlights:
1. Protecting Prostitution.
2. Protecting Bigamy.
3. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
4. Criticizing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
5. Urging Co-Ed Prisons.
6. Reducing the Age of Consent to 12.
I don't care how much experience she had prior to her nomination. She is by any other word... extreme. And yet she was still confirmed almost unanimously by Democrats and Republicans. But Clarence Thomas doesn't get the same treatment. He gets slandered by a bunch of mealy mouthed liberal senators who fain outrage at sexual harassment who later would be silent when the commander in sleaze, B.J. Bill Clinton was accused of far worse.
as i remember the arguments about thomas, the criticism of him was more that he was not qualified and regarding his stance on civil rights
BigKAD @ 73:
You say "extreme," karen says "unqualified" . . . cant you trolls get your stories straight?
Site Monitor: AGAIN, Karen did NOT say "unqualified", she was quoting another poster. Karen is a poster here of long standing and NOT a troll.
BigKAD @ 70:
For a second there I thought you were being sarcastic, but the "Olberwoman" nugget made it clear that you were serious. You are indeed jealous, only if you could get our liberal wit!!!
So Impeaching for lying about invading another country, costing untold innocent lives and billions of money, is a "political vendetta." Yet spending $50 million investigating the president's zipper is perfectly OK, who knew that you guys felt so strongly against oral sex. Man your sex lives must suck, so "uncreative" pardon the pun.
Anyhow, if you think that Election fraud was invented in Chicago by using the deceased, I have a very nice bridge to sell to you...
BigKAD @ 73:
Holy shit! Are you guys still obsessed over a Blow Job 10+ yrs ago?????
Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick, talk about being in the closet... is it because your wives won't go down on you guys? Or maybe because you are slowly figuring out that all those homosexual fantasies, through your miserably boring lives, were an indication of your very own homosexuality...
This obsession with Clinton's penis is now officially the world's most expensive and pathetic cry for help? Go and give some dude a blow job and get it out of your system, for crying out loud it just can't be healthy. 10+ years... and still obsessing about a blow job... unfuckingbeliebeable.
Thomas is teaching classes at Georgetown on how to leave pubic hairs on soda cans
Heya, site monitor. Thanks for the defense.
Heh, I noticed that I messed up the blockquoting on that post so I understand the confusion.
I was saying that I have great respect for Justice Ginsburg, and was asking the person who called her unqualified why s/he thought so.
Dr. Who: Holy shit! Are you guys still obsessed over a Blow Job 10+ yrs ago?????
Matt: I think that episode strikes right at the heart of corporate male power in the workplace.
In fact, Clinton's entire life is a case study in female exploitation. It was disappointing so many feminist voices opted for partisan solidarity rather than principle.
BigKAD @ 73:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
soothsayer @ 69:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
Soothsayer... Ginsburg was a bag-lady for the ACLU. Her views do not reflect the mainstream of America IN ANY TIME PERIOD.
Just a few of her lowlights:
1. Protecting Prostitution.
2. Protecting Bigamy.
3. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
4. Criticizing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
5. Urging Co-Ed Prisons.
6. Reducing the Age of Consent to 12.
I don't care how much experience she had prior to her nomination. She is by any other word... extreme. And yet she was still confirmed almost unanimously by Democrats and Republicans. But Clarence Thomas doesn't get the same treatment. He gets slandered by a bunch of mealy mouthed liberal senators who fain outrage at sexual harassment who later would be silent when the commander in sleaze, B.J. Bill Clinton was accused of far worse.
BigKAD @ 73:
soothsayer @ 69:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
soothsayer @ 69:
This is a stunningly uninformed statement.
Justice Ginsburg was 60 years old, with 13 years experience as a Federal judge,when she was appointed by President Clinton. As a practicing attorney, she litigated cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a law student, she was a member of both Harvard and Columbia Law Review.
Clarence Thomas was a (charitably) mediocre law student, and had just one year experience as a Federal judge when he was appointed by George H.W. Bush at age 43.
Soothsayer... Ginsburg was a bag-lady for the ACLU. Her views do not reflect the mainstream of America IN ANY TIME PERIOD.
Just a few of her lowlights:
1. Protecting Prostitution.
2. Protecting Bigamy.
3. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
4. Criticizing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
5. Urging Co-Ed Prisons.
6. Reducing the Age of Consent to 12.
I don't care how much experience she had prior to her nomination. She is by any other word... extreme. And yet she was still confirmed almost unanimously by Democrats and Republicans. But Clarence Thomas doesn't get the same treatment. He gets slandered by a bunch of mealy mouthed liberal senators who fain outrage at sexual harassment who later would be silent when the commander in sleaze, B.J. Bill Clinton was accused of far worse.
way to misrepresent justice ginsbergs legal history
your wingnuttiness is showing
btw, prostitution should be legal, and all wingnuts should support that position...this way all your reps wouldnt end up in prison
bunch of whoremongers
oops, i responded to the wrong post...forgive me
I can't bear to watch the video or even look at this guy's face.
Thomas is, at best, a judicial mediocrity. At least Scalia has the cojones to appear in front of diverse audiences to defend his position, like his debate with Justice Breyer at American University a few months ago. Thomas only appears publicly before audiences he knows will be sympathetic--like the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Eagle Forum. Even when he appears at events like the Eagle Forum, he tries to get reporters banned from the event!
I'm sorry, but how can anyone respect the intellect of someone in such a public position who only appears in public in front of sympathetic crowds, who almost never speaks a word from the bench, and who resorts to name-calling and espousing his crappy judicial "philosophy" only via books and court opinions?
Dr. Who @ 77:
Dr Schmoe... I couldn't care less about B.J. Clinton's unit.. me thinks thou does protest too much. Your obsession sounds like you are the president of the small-unit club Dr. Who...
My only obsession about that freakin loser of a President is his legacy. He has permanently shit-canned my son's perception of the Presidency. He does not think of the President as a moral leader, just another adult who couldn't keep it in his pants. Thank you Mr. Clinton.
My point regarding Justice Thomas was the clear hypocrisy of the left where a he-said/she-said accusation is automatically true when it's a conservative, but blow-job Clinton is treated like a king to this day by the left. And he was accused of rape.
Bring your A-Game next time Dr. Who...
BigKAD @ 73:
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Never got a BJ and you are still B-I-T-T-E-R.
And Ginsburg CRITICISED the Scouts???!1!11!!111? That whore!
Reducing the Age of Consent to 12.-The age of consent was raised from 12-15 in many of your bubba hillbilly states in the 40s-50s. Maybe even later. So now you are calling her OLD FASHIONED!
You are just effing insane. We'll get ya a WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhmbulance.
The following comes from this post. Because of possible mix-ups in blockquoting, I'm not sure who's sentiments they are, but I want to respond.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is not to represent the mainstream of America. The Judicial power is about interpreting the law and Constitution, and applying it to cases and controversies. Being "extreme" has nothing to do with whether one is "qualified" to serve on the Court.
As far as her record you've cited, prostitution should be protected. Governments have no legitimate authority to outlaw it. Same with bigamy. If self proclaimed "textualists" like Scalia and Thomas actually implemented the texts of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, they'd rule that way as well. (By the way, I have a lot of respect for Scalia, even though I passionately disagree with many of his rulings, and I would never say he was unqualified to be on the bench. He's brilliant.) But conservative justices throughout our history have gutted those amendments, rendering them dead letter.
As for "criticizing the Boy Scouts," um, what? The Boy Scouts are untouchable? Are they little Patraeuses?
As for the others on your list of "lowlights," I'd like to see the citations on those cases. To see what she actually said, and how she actually ruled. Somehow, I don't see any judge having any power to abolish a holiday, for instance. Or even a case where it would come up.
Karen @ 79:
Hey Karen sorry :D
Looks like big kad takes his marching orders from rush limbaugh... no sense trying to reason with his sort.
BigKAD @ 84:
Wait, what? You couldn't care less about Clinton's penis, except for that because of the way he used it, your son has a bad view of the presidency?
Aside from the contradictions such sentiments entail, couldn't you just have an honest conversation with your son about sex? A lot of people have weaknesses when it comes to controlling their sexual urges. Clinton is one of them. It makes him human, not a moral failure. Moreover, his legacy and presidency involved far more than a stupid sex scandal. And most of those who are angry over Clinton's exploits know of the Lewinsky affair, which I found creepy, but ultimately involved consenting adults, and was none of the public's business.
I'll agree that there is some hypocrisy there. On both sides. Though Clinton's blow job is simply irrelevant to our reverence for Clinton, to the extent that we revere him. Not all of us do. I actually didn't think Thomas' exploits had anything to do with whether he were qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and was, myself, annoyed with how Congress behaved back then. They should have rejected him, and for the right reasons.
Clinton's been accused of everything under the sun. None of us believe he committed rape. Do you?
Damn. I can't wait till the Supreme Court again is filled with people who take their job seriously. I'm not really looking for people who agree with me. I just want someone who isn't freaking nuts.
his book should sell very well when you factor in the bulk purchases by blackwater,
halliburton, etc.
I'm sure Davdid Vitter would have a lot to say about whether or not prostitution should be legal. Or being gay for that matter. I believe it was the Republicans who supported the Texan law against men getting it on in the bedroom.
I watched the 60 Minutes interview and I saw in Judge Thomas a deeply hurt and confused man. First, he confused his grandfather's discipline with some kind of moral perfection. (This is, in fact, how masochists are made).
Then, when he left home Thomas sought new authority figures, first in the 60's black power movement. He was inevitably disappointed when he realized that black empowerment (and self-empowerment) required social consciousness, which he sorely lacked.
When he found the Republicans and the conservative movement, he was able to fulfill at least part of his need: an authoritarian philosophy lacking any social consciousness whatsoever. His warped conservative convictions serve as a transparent rationalization of his deep, deep, pain.
The interview was riveting, not so much because of what Thomas said, but because of the war of emotions playing out on his face. The words were facile, but the eyes betrayed much. That's one sad, confused man.
Has anybody discussed the possibility that Clarance hates African Americans? I believe he does, anyone in white skin who espoused his venemous ideas, would certainly be labeled a racist.
BigKAD @ 84:
I don't know what it is more disturbing; that you as a gay male was able to reproduce, or that you consider that invading a country and killing scores of innocent civilians is somehow a worse offense that sex between 2 consenting individuals. I mean are you that repressed that can't fathom the idea of you child even been expose to sex, yet you are A-OK with your child being exposed to death and destruction and our collective responsibility in the invasion of another country? Wow... seriously, just fucking hire a hooker and have her go down on you... This BJ obsession is seriously starting to freak me out.
BTW, I love how you always try to derail the conversation --like a good GOP troll I may add-- and go back to the good ol' Clinton/BJ argument. Seriously, you guys need new material.
Ironically, for someone so concerned about the rule of law, you should know that being accused and being convicted are two very different things. The cognitive dissonance in the conservative mind is becoming deafening by the minute, trying to have their cake and eat it too...
Seriously, I just pity your poor wife... I hope she has a good shower head, or a nice pool boy...
chazaroo @ 94:
Self hate and loathing seems to be almost a requirement for being part of any conservative group these days. Witness the string of ultra conservative religious males caught sucking dick (some even doing meth to enhance their "piousness") in between sessions of gay bashing.
No one was shocked when Justice Thomas sold himself back into slavery.
we have self hating jews............why not self hating african americans?
Thomas? I thought he was dead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR200710...
Witness for The Persecution
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; Page A19
I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it. One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. (cont..)
"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
I misquoted and I forgot who said it - but I think about it every time any discussion of our fascist Supreme Court catches my eye.
Imagine the fight that the rethugs would put up against nominees as progressive as Reinquist, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts are fascist were submitted to the Senate - especially if there was a 4-4 split at the time of the nomination. There Hasn't been ONE truly progressive Justice since William O Douglas (a great patriot and defender of the constitution. I recommend that anybody unfamiliar with him and his role on the court read any of his writings - just to see that such men have actually existed since the time of Jefferson.)
Most of those Nazis were confirmed by DEMOCRATIC majorities in the Senate. No true progressive could get past a Republican MINORITY - because they are willing to fight like junkyard dogs on an issue that important.
When I heard Obama say he would have voted to confirm Roberts, that ended any possibility I would support him for president - unless he is the nominee.
I knew the damage Reinquist would do - 30 years ago - and I have watched the Democrats cave over and over again.
So now we have an appointed president who asserts dictatorial powers. This slide into fascism began with the upholding of "no knock" drug laws (passed by a Democratic congress) by the Nixon court (which rendered the second amendment a dead letter - if you can't shoot hostile strangers who kick down your door, the right "to bear and carry arms" is moot)
I lay the trashing of our constitution directly at the feet of cowardly Democrats of the last 30 years, who have let themselves be stampeded, manipulated and cowed by one fascist tactic after another.
Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.
Justice Thomas does not appear happy with his life. He denies caring how he is viewed by the American people he sits in position to effect their lives. Much more effect from Thomas's personal view that drives what he sees in law and what he does not see.
Case in point was when the Supreme court decided to hear George Bush v Al Gore and rule in favor of a candidate instead of sending it back for a re vote. Sending it back to the American people instead of over reaching and meddling. I never saw any constitutional guide that the Supreme Court was to basically pick a Presidential victor in that situation.
Thomas clearly has some desire to snub the American people from a public paying job with benefits with life time job guarantee, to strike out with "memoirs" that I feel are undistinguished of a Supreme Court Justice and directed with controversy at America..
Scalia is a fucking nutbag fascist asshole. I hate to break his apparent denial.
Thomas says he believes in the constitution only when it serves his agenda, but other times he simply leaves out his original intent crap when it suits him . . .
The slam on Judge Ginsburg and the age of consent bit comes from something Senator Lindsey Graham tried to smear her with. A good example of the situation can be found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2126491/ & http://mediamatters.org/items/200509230007
thank you George Sr. and a couple of, well to call them spineless is a bit of an exaggeration as it implies earlier spinehood, spineless democrats. Thomas is an affirmative action turd.
Sad day for America when the majority of the so-called justices on the Supreme Court can be categorized by the probability that they will stand up for injustice instead of justice, will support the rich and powerful over the poor and defenseless and place property rights of the privileged above the human rights of everybody else.
I have no respect for these people, as either alleged legal scholars, thinkers, judges or people. They are thugs in my eyes, no different than the puppet judges Hitler created for his Volks Courts. The majority are apologists, enablers and champions of evil.
Honestly, I think there's something wrong with Thomas. He looks unhappy, even angry, and the way he laughs (the one time he did) is kind of creepy. Like his mouth is out of sync with his eyes, or something. I am serious. I don't think he's all together up there.
Thomas is still a Corporate hack... If you are a judge and have a conflict of interest then you must abstain and recuse yourself from the decision. When it comes to Monsanto, Justice Thomas has not done this and there is no where to appeal the rule of law past the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas' individual responsibility should be to recuse himself from any cases involving his former employer to avoid the appearance of or any actual conflicts of interest after having served as a legal advocate for them.
Too bad Judge Thomas didn't detail in his book how, as a former lawyer for the Monsanto Corporation, he failed to abstain and recuse himself from hearing numerous cases involving his former employer including a case in whch he voted against a Monsanto employee suing Monsanto over chemical workplace injuries who lost his U.S. Supreme Court appeal by one vote.
In 1977, Thomas became a corporate lawyer in the pesticide and agriculture division of the Monsanto Company.
Thomas has a HUGE grudge against who knows what else. I don't even want to have a glimpse at the worm pit that must be his mind. His opinions have no principles whatsoever other than proving the people wrong he hates for some reason: the black comunity, liberals, feminists, Democrats, probably women.
I still think the things Anita Hill revealed about him sum it up pretty well: sexism, sexual obsessions, inferiority complexes. Bush I gave him powers. So he'll stay indebted to that branch of skull and bones forever.
The very fact that this disgusting S.O.B, believes that abortion issues were the reason he was dumped on lends credence to why black America was and continues to be outraged by him occupying a seat on the Supreme Court, after such an honorable black man as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and the fact that George Bushes very ignorant pappy went down the toilet as black America showed him how very wrong that fatal decision was. And for making that decision,we rallied behind a very young and so called inexperienced candidate, by the name of William Jefferson Clinton.
I don't deny that abortion is a very troubling issue, but it is certainly not on the top of most American charts as it is for the white right who seem to be most obsessed with and concerned about young women who may have to make that decision , yet have no feelings what so ever about the millions of people we are murdering in an illegal war of a country we invaded. It is hypocrisy at the highest levels of our government and it is in our face.
This guy is really the kind of black man that the white right dream of, because they can always use him to do much of the dirt they plan to do with black Americans without getting all of their hands dirty. He will sit his ignorant arrogant ass on that Supreme Court Bench and say nothing, as he waits for his Que, to destroy black Americans and willfully deny them equal excess because of the fears of others who worry that many of us may not measure up to the vile image, they portray us all over media.
Even though he, himself used the system just as it was designed for and because of the inequity in our system of government to assist people who have been and continue to be oppressed. The sad thing is that he actually has no shame at all.
It never dons on any of these people that the problems in our communities, especially in the black and brown are simply based on poverty, injustice in the educational, employment and judicial systems, owned operated and controlled by the white right and the knowledge that things are never going to get any better.
They have no clue that this is a problem that is owned operated and controlled by a system that refuses to see the light and that it is not only bad for the people caught up in that hell, but other citizens that are not because we all worry about our children that could be shot or murdered by these oppressed people. They continue to attempt to hammer home the thought, that it is the problem and the fault of the oppressed, who just do not want to have a decent life. You can only push people so far and that is something we all need to think about.
We can do better then this America, and Clarence Thomas is not alone, with these two new thugs on the Supreme Court Bench, in Sam Alito and Roberts, who were simply put in those jobs to please right wing criminals, one of which is currently occupying the highest office in the land, as the President of the United States of America.
How Sad.
This sad, angry man is one more contribution of the Bush family to American history.
CappuccettoRosso @ 100:
Good Robinson piece. was in the middle of my art career during the Thomas hearings, and listened to them on the radio. I remember being horrified that a man who expressed such animus against his political opposition was going to be sitting in judgment. It was clear he was selected for his reliability in hewing to an extreme ideology. I, too, was pretty sure Anita Hill was telling the truth. (and would commend Mayer and Abramson's "Strange Justice: the Selling of Clarence Thomas" see http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Justice-Selling-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0395633184 to talk about the other suppressed complaints of harassment against Thomas.)
If he has the hatred for the groups he blames for raising these issues as articulated in his statement that it was 'a high tech lynching', he should recuse himself whenever the ACLU or Planned Parenthood (e.g.) come before the Court.
Joseph @ 18:
Malcom X commented about people like Thomas -
"There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes — they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house — quicker than the master would. If the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call them today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here."
Thomas is angry and self hating. More than just a legal study, he should be a case study for a psychiatrist.
Uncle Clarence strikes again...
Anita Hill's Op-Ed @ NYT follows up on this latest truthiness from a major LIAR, deranged Supreme
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?hp
October 2, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The Smear This Time
By ANITA HILL
Waltham, Mass.
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.
Weird, Clarence did not strike me as sad. He struck me as, I'm here and I'm staying so all you haters can piss off. I really did like him.
Clarence's actions show that he acknowledges he is a mediocre judge. Despite his seniority and having more experience, he meekly stood aside while Roberts was appointed Chief Justice.
tia chi @ 32:
You've got to be joking! The Anita Hill debacle was horrible and all the smears against her where manufactured out of whole cloth by David Brock. Look it up... don't be a schmuck!
BigKAD @ 84:
If your kid has a negative perception of the Presidency, you might look to those that made his penis a 24/7 news story. I know he didn't want it on the news every night. OH, and you might want to take some responsibility yourself (sure, that might happen). Where did he or she hear about the big, bad penis? Could it have been your obsession?
ANd, CLINTON WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF RAPE!!!!
Is it just me or does Thomas' picture at the top of the blog look like his straightjacket is just a little too snug?
This man is clearly not competent to be a justice of any court. How do we recall members of the court?
Here's some precedence for ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Fdyy3CkpY
oldtree @ 121:
I don't recall.
Thomas is right that his nomination process was about abortion. Anita Hill came forward at the last minute with allegations about sexual harassment from 20 years before, albeit she hadn't raised the issue against Thomas at any point before his confirmation hearings.
But Hill was used by the Democrats to further their abortion-rights agenda.
Buit Thomas then forfeited the moral high ground by pulling the race card. He wasn't lynched, he was simply victiminzed by a political dirty trick. The tragedy was and is that Thomas was never qualified to be a Supreme Court justice (not even close), but his lack of qualifications took a back seat to sexual harassment and abortion rights.
Dr. Who @ 77:
Methinks BeKAD needs to go tapdancing in an airport toilet stall.
Another poli-celeb writes a book. So what? The real question is who was the ghost that wrote the book for him. Pardon me, who was the editor of his introspactive journey of self revelation?
Do zombies write the autobiograpies of famous ghost writers?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The October 2 New York Times has an op-ed piece by Prof. Anita Hill in response.
"Uncle Tom". Scaaaarrrry!
This is a typical liberal response.
[Deleted. Actually, unlike the right, there IS no typical liberal response, because people left of center, generally think for themselves. Your post was a projection of right wing behavior, and I took it down to ease your embarrassment-Sitemonitor]
ysbaddaden @ 123:
Impeachment
Clarence is an angry man and he's eating up inside because he accepted the 30 pieces of sliver from Satan. When Clarence sleeps he sees his Grandfather and his Mother and how much the feel let down by everything they gave him. Clarence was used from the start when the Republican party needed a black face to help the party. Look they used Gonzales for the Spanish vote. Clarence knows he is ordered to vote to dismantle the Civil Rights Bill and the Woman's Right Bill. Once the GOP has completed it's work Clarence will be told to resign to spend time with his family. He got the job of Justice because they didn't a boy to do as he was told, Clarence wasn't qualified for the job so the topic wasn't his lack of experience but his conduct with Anita Hill. Clarence is testing his argument now because he'll have to answer to God. Clarence knows he will never see his Grandfather or his Mother again because he wont be going to heaven. Like Judas, Clarence made a choice take the money and life Satan is offering or live free and make it on your own. Clarence choose Satan's offer and now it's to late to turn back.
K Makinney @ 130:
One thing is very clear, he's going to be around for another 30 years and
nobody can do a thing about it.
Affirmative Action does have consequences.
K Makinney @ 130:
You mean discuss the issues like these two overly-mature Republican spokesmen?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/01/right-wing-blogs-choose-their-f...
Oh yeah, Melanie Morgan looked so mature compared to Jon Soltz.
K Makinney @ 130:
But left the post later down where the original post was quoted.
Wow the good judge should just move on. He sounds whiney.
This person is clearly no competent enough to be in the supreme court. But, since he was appointed by the older Bush, he fits right in with the Bushes' incompetence.
I feel for Thomas...he obviously can't get past his own self hatred. Anita Hill continues, to this day, to make him look like a fool. And Scalia, who Thomas follows like a puppy dog, thinks he's a nut.
Truth be told, he'll go down as one of, if not the worse, jurist in the history of the Court.
Clarence Thomas public retaliation against Anita Hill for charging him with sexual harassment is a violation of the law and an abuse of his office as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States. To restore the rule of law, Congress should impeach him. More on this at my blog, http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com
[...] Crooks and Liars » 60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations [...]
[...] 60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations [...]
[...] Crooks and Liars » 60 Minutes: Clarence Thomas addresses abortion and Uncle Tom accusations [...]
Comments are closed on this entry