“I was the black pinata.”
Update: Justice Thomas met with members of the new media tonight. La Shawn Barber, among several right-leaning bloggers, was there.
***
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas endured ad hominem attacks and character assassination attempts to an extent that few other public figures in American life have ever endured. His new book, “My Grandfather’s Son,” was released today. Finally, on this first Monday in October, he is getting the respectful hearing from the MSM he deserves.
From 60 Minutes.
From Yahoo! News.
From ABC News.
We know it can’t last. So, go buy the book and let’s not lose sight, as Eugene Volokh reminds us, of the vicious treatment Justice Thomas has received for daring to defy identity politics and racial groupthink.
Liberal racism is as alive as ever.
***
Two greats together: Rush Limbaugh interviews Justice Thomas.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Babalu Blog
» Greece is BurningPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsNice Deb
» Former DEA Chief Tells Fox News: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation ‘Fast and Furious’Gateway Pundit
» Notre Dame Tells Obama: HHS Mandate Is a ‘Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’AmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
the 60 minutes piece didn’t cover much, but I like the ABC News’ article.
FYI – Rush did a longer interview on his show today – (90 minutes). Check it out if you can.
Justice Thomas was treated very poorly during his confirmation process. The pro-choice caucus was in the fight of it’s life (no pun intended) during that time, and the all the nonsense about Thomas’ sexual habits was a smokescreen. However, I have a number of classmates and other friends who clerked for appeals court judges and other Supreme Court justices (almost all conservative judges and justices), and their opinions of Justice Thomas are not overly favorable. Bush 41 and his staff felt like they had to get an African-American on the court to fill the spot left by Marshall (even though Thomas wasn’t actually filling Marshall’s spot) and the honest truth is that Thomas was the only remotely conservative candidate available. The independent qualification ratings given to him were not good. He’s kind of an odd and angry guy. Nonetheless, the far right (especially the cultural/religious right) has been very happy with Justice Thomas because he basically takes whatever side Scalia is on.
Justice Thomas was never qualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice. Please look at this man’s legal career as compared to some of the other justices.
Not to mention the fact that he benefitted in educational opportunities from the same type of Affirmative Action initiatives he always rails against. Count me as unimpressed by this man.
I am going to buy the book. I listened to him today on Rush’s show and was very pleased with his attitude and style of life. I do not know anything about him and he’s a Justice of the Court!!!!!
He appears to be the epitomy of the ‘successful’ black man which Dems abhor. Shame on them. I think I will enjoy Justice Thomas lifestory about he and his Grandfather and family. Eat your heart out Jesse, Al et al…
Two greats together: Rush Limbaugh interviews Justice Thomas.
Sorry. Putting “el Rushbo” (too dorky for comment) in the same category as Thomas is beyond absurd. Justice Thomas deserves far more respect than to be in the same sentence with that buffoon…
Certainly Limbaugh is not the same caliber of Supreme Court Justice as Thomas. And Justice Thomas can’t touch Rush as a radio host. But they are indeed the very epitome of greats in their respective fields.
On October 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm, purplepeep said:
I respect your opinion, but for me, Limbaugh is an ass. The stupid, pompous act wore thin years and years ago. He’s really nothing different than Hannity, Ingraham, etc. Like them, he’s not even close to being an historian, which renders him a cheerleader. That and the freakin AWFUL, stuttering delivery makes him un-listenable. I can last a couple minutes tops the times I try. To each his own I guess…
I heard him interviewed on Rush. He’s an amazing person.
Even as he denounces the left’s racism, Clarence Thomas can never stop playing the black victim card.
I’m supposed to shed a tear for one of the most powerful men in the world? Sorry, but my sympathy runs out at a much lower rung on the ladder.
He’s doing a great job, but spare me the whining. You are a successful adult, not a victim Clarence!
You didn’t quote what you were supposed to be responding to – but if mean about Justice Thomas and Rush being greats, it’s not a matter of opinion. Well, on Justice Thomas it is since there’s no commonly accepted measure of greatness that can be applied in his case.
However Limbaugh has won the Marconi Award four times, been inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame and is hailed by his peers as the “greatest radio talk show host of all time” (Talker magazine). He has been credited with saving the AM band, especially for talk radio, when it was near death in the 80s due to listeners increasingly tuning into FM. Not to mention him being extremely succesful and wildly popular with the public. (Okay, so I mentioned it)
So, by any objective definition, Rush Limbaugh is obviously “a great” in his field. Whether he’s your cuppa tea or not is another subject and doesn’t figure into the “greatness” equation.
Rush did a great job interviewing Justice Thomas, a true American patriot. The inner strength this man must have to withstand the full frontal attack of the howling loons on the left. It couldn’t happen in 2007, no way, no how.
His interview with Rush was amazing. Everyone should either get a transcript of it or find it somewhere to listen to. To me, he seems like a person that people can relate to. Doesn’t have that often seen persona of someone with power. I don’t think he is playing any race card. He doesn’t need to play a race card. He is simply stating what happened, not playing a race card.
Actually, Justice Thomas was a victim of the Anita Hill Gang and has never really made much of it before. He’s just recounting history from his experience and I’m glad he’s touchig on it.
I had the pleasure of being able to listen to most of the Rush/Thomas interview—I would’ve listened to all of it, but I had logic class.
I agreed with Rush’s “theory”: that the so-called “civil rights” crowd hates Thomas because he’s the most powerful African-American in the nation, and he did it without their help.
Guess he wouldn’t fall under the “race hustlers” catagory, right Ms. Malkin?
If anything, I am glad I got a chance to watch the 60 Minutes special. An open and honest look into Justice Thomas.
I’m just dissapointed that many people who are mad whenever race is brought into the equation when used by liberals, aren’t mad at conservatives when they bring up race.
Sounds interesting. I’ll have to read it. What was the name? If I Really Did It, by the distinguished jurist Clarence Thomas?
The honest truth is that Justice Thomas has done nothing to distinguish himself in his 16 odd years on the court. By no reasonable measure is he a “great” Supreme Court Justice. However, he did not deserve what he was forced to go through during his confirmation process.
I’ll never understand the love affair some on the right have with Rush Limbaugh. Smug, shrill, demagogue, rude, mean-spirited, disingenuous, insincere, cowardly, not particularly bright, etc. He’s not a serious person IMHO, and he hurts the conservative movement and the Republican party when it comes to swaying mainstream Americans (independents, moderates, etc.). Republicans pander to Rush and his ilk in the same way that Democrats pander to Kos, etc. It’s a sad deal to me.
OneofThem, you and your hero Rush couldn’t be more wrong. Justice Thomas was admitted to Yale Law as part of a “diversity” program, and he never would’ve been nominated to the Supreme Court if he hadn’t been African-American. By most accounts he’s a bitter and angry man to this day as a result. He hasn’t embarrassed himself on the Court, but as Justices go, he’ll go down as pretty below average. If you feel the need to listen to talk radio, please try someone such as Hugh Hewitt. Hugh has a brain and engages in serious and rational discussion with callers and guest from across the political spectrum. Limbaugh is a cartoon character. If you’re getting your opinions from this clown, you’re rotting your brain.
It was quite an impressive interview. As for the negative comments posted about Justice Thomas, I would like further background on the people making the comments. I never quite understood how Justice Thomas could be attacked for simply succeeding and rising to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court. He has now given us a written document to explain his background and education. As for the people who feel compelled to continue these attacks on his character, their lack of identity or documentation should give us some idea of their purpose. I will be purchasing the book and sending a copy to my daughter.
Have to disagree pp: “Actually, Justice Thomas was a victim of the Anita Hill Gang and has never really made much of it before. He’s just recounting history from his experience and I’m glad he’s touchig on it.”
Thomas had the gall to compare his hearing to a lynching at the time. When he does surface to say anything publicly, it’s all this whiney persecution complex stuff. Very unbecoming for an adult.
Justice Thomas is whining and playing th race card. I’m also sick of people using the term LYNCHING to describe any situation other than a racist murder, usually with a rope and a tree. Thomas wasn’t lynched, and I’m offended by the use of term. If a liberal African-American used the term in such a fashion, the conservatives would be all over him/her.
On October 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm, purplepeep said:
…You didn’t quote what you were supposed to be responding to…
I don’t do hero worship. The guy is as superficial a commentator as they come. He made it big – good for him. He still has no grasp of history, and his life/ background is unremarkable. He’s a genuine putz. If the choice was him or air America, sure I’d pick him, but…
Exactly my point. Ms. Malkin turns around and calls him “great.” I’m curious to know why it’s OK for him to use that term, but liberals can’t without being called a “race huster” “race baiter” etc. etc. etc.
derel and Buck, I have to agree with you guys. There’s just something very odd about Justice Thomas. He says virtually nothing for 16 years and then writes a book with the same angry and bitter stuff he said during his confirmation hearings. The guy has issues as they say. Again, however, the cultural conservatives (our host included I would guess) love him because he is almost always Justice Scalia’s wingman on all the big opinions. To them, how he got on the Court and whatever odd personality traits he has are of no consequence, so long as he continues to carry their water.
I knew Clarence Thomas was in trouble when the Liberal Media declared that he had a Confederate Flag in his office.
It is the Georgia State Flag.
Secondly, Anita Hill’s attorney is now the Governor of Arizona, and does not mention her role in the Confirmation Hearings
Have to disagree pp: “Actually, Justice Thomas was a victim of the Anita Hill Gang and has never really made much of it before. He’s just recounting history from his experience and I’m glad he’s touchig on it.”
One line is hardly a book, derek. And to be correct the quote was an “electronic lynching” – which is was.
And, ironically enough, the electronic lynching was due to the fact that he didn’t buy into the Jackson-Sharpton helpless perpectual black-victimhood template.
(Hmmm…I’m waiting for Rusty to pop up here to claim the Anita Hill Gang’s lynching of Thomas was “terrorism”. Of course in his view if some Mom doesn’t bake a dozen cookies on demand for a spoiled rotten kid she’d be “terrorizing” the child. Ah, well…..)
No, purplepeep, this is the correct quote derel3433 was referring to…
“You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
I see no mention of ‘electronic’ in there. Your thoughts?
watchdog, not really sure what your point is to be honest. I’m not sure anybody has really “attacked” Justice Thomas on this blog. In any event, criticisms of his performance in his role as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court comes with the territory mate…he’s a public servant. To answer your question, I’m a 20 year corporate lawyer (including stints with two of the most prestigious firms in the country) with an interest in constitutional law. I’m a law geek, so I read the Supremes’ decisions pretty regularly. In addition, I have a number of law school classmates and other friends who have clerked on various US appellate courts and the Supreme Court, so I’m somewhat privy to inside info, gossip, informed opinions on the Justices, etc. I’ll stand by my previous posts.
What? That makes no sense. What are you even talking about?
And, yes, real lynchings are obviously terrorism. Real ones though.
Using the term “lynching” to describe the Anita Hill hearings is insanely insensitive and inaccurate. The man is an embarassment to the Court. Anyone who talks about how great it is that Justice Thomas rose to the Supreme Court out of one side of their mouth while complaining about affirmative action out of the other is the greatest form of hypocrite. He was woefully unqualified for that position and his 16 years on the Court have confirmed that.
I mean, he said he didn’t have a position on Roe v. Wade. The most controversial decision of the 20th Century and he hadn’t even considered it!? The man is either a liar or a moron.
And I’m not railing against Thomas because he’s a conservative. I have a very high opinion of Jusitce Roberts and I adore Justice Scalia. (His dissents are fantastic reading.) Even the ABA refused to call him “well-qualified.”
Is it unfair that some people attacked Justice Thomas for having a white wife? Goodness, yes. Is it unacceptable and inappropriate when someone calls him an “Uncle Tom” or uses racially charged language? Again, of course. I’m more than willing to admit that Thomas has had to face unnecessary obstacles because of the potent combination of his race and his ideologies. But that doesn’t excuse Thomas from being a bad judge.
I’m just hoping for a response from Ms. Malkin (post #16) or Purplepeep (post #29) to my questions.
I’d love to hear them…
Why would he have an opinion on Roe v. Wade when feminists were already rallying to defeat confirmation? He would have to be an idiot to state an opinion on it under the circumstances at the time, unless he preferred to go the way of Robert Bork.
maximus my man, it’s not that he chose not to discuss his views on Roe v. Wade. He claimed to never have given the subject any thought whatsoever. C’mon…that’s intellectually dishonest at best and absolutely moronic at worst. Sorry to say, as Supremes go, Justice Thomas is a classic empty suit. There’s not a lot to the guy.
Dakine,
I would disagree, on all points.
To have voiced an opinion at that time would have been moronic, unless he really wasn’t interested in sitting on the SCOTUS because it would have killed his already narrow confirmation.
And despite your contention that he’s an “empty suit” and “not a lot to the guy”, he’s still a sitting judge on the SCOTUS and has a LOT more going for him than any corporate attorney in the country.
I mean, don’t take it the wrong way, but if you haven’t noticed lately, not a lot of people have very much respect for attorney’s.
Offended or not lynching is a perfect description of what the man was put through. However, with all the racial slurs thrown at the man from the left at the time, coupled with his treatment by the dems on the committee it might be more appropriate to say he was the victim of a hate crime.
Name one liberal minority who was nominated for a government position, who went before a senate committee and was treated the way he was?
No liberal that I know of was ever in the same position to use the term lynching as was Thomas.
As for his whining, realistically he will be asked about his confirmation experience until the day he dies, how do you suggest he talk about it?
Quite frankly, that fact that he’s waited this long to talk about it amazes me.
The black women who attacked him were whores for the left. Used and abused. As if anyone gives a damn about their disgraceful behavior and the ridiculous feminist ideologically discredited nonsense they spewed as if they were 13 year old prudes.
My bad, the actual term was “high-tech lynching” in the sentence that preceded the snippet you’ve posted above:
“as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves”
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE – CLARENCE THOMAS
Kinda like how you toss out the term “terrorism” one suspects, Rusty.
So when a black person says s/he was a victim of a lynching they should be attacked as “a liar or a moron” in lieu of supporting them? So much for the touted diversity and ethnic/racial sensitivity of the fringe left.
To suggest that Justice Thomas is unremarkable is absurd. Jan Greenburg made that rather clear recently.
Having watched all of the televised hearings as well as several others, “lynching” is not too strong of a word. It was obvious that the Democrats were out to damage him in any way that they could. Nothing they tried was apparently too low.
As for Thomas playing the “race card” as some here assert, anyone remember the Democrat memo not too long ago about their concern about a certain Latino nominee? History being what it is, I’ve no doubt that they had the same concerns with Thomas’ nomination.
.
My my what a blast against the man and his career. I wonder why we aren’t hearing from you Thomas critics about the white pinata, Bork? Same Senate panel in essence and same tactics: go after the ideology but cloke it in other terms to “lynch” the person. Yes they drag everything and everybody out from under their liberal flat rocks. But now they are so emboldened, they just attack whether they can drum up false witnesses or not. Now democracy has taken just a hit from these Senate Committee demons that the President can’t even put up his desired nominee for any position with out considering the partisan fight. We’ve lost our soul as a country and we better get it back.
I love him–he’s awesome. Can’t WAIT to get my hands on this book.
I throw out the word “terrorism” when someone is trying to terrorize another group of people. Sometimes it’s more big-scale (ie flying planes into a building), sometimes it’s on a smaller scale (castrating and murdering a black man accused of having sex with a white woman; dragging a black man to his death behind a pick-up truck; beating a homosexual and leaving him to die tied a fence post). But all three of those actions are meant to terrorize. I don’t take the word lightly.
Which is why his use of the word “lynching” is so disgusting. I was watching MM on O’Reilly and she was interviewing the President of the Atlanta NAACP Chapter. He said the Michael Vick saga, before his guilty plea, was a judicial lynching. MM quickly, and correctly, jumped all over him for using that terminology. Lynching is racial terrorism and using it lightly is greatly offensive to the hundreds of people murdered by American mobs.
Anyone who takes the word “lynching” so lightly should check this out.
Justice Thomas is a liar or a moron based on his actions regarding Roe v. Wade during the confirmation hearings. People can say he did the right thing politically, but, come on. The man was under oath. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on “moron.” He’s a Supreme Court Justice so he’s obviously a smart guy. He’s just not a very good Justice. If you want to compliment great legal minds with conservative bona fides, stick with Scalia and Roberts. They’re brilliant. Thomas is incredibly lucky to sit on the same bench as them.
Thats interesting considering that this “moron” as you put it is on record for changing Scalia’s mind on occasion.
Now as to the term “lynching”, I’m sorry but the use of that word in the context of the hearings is wholly appropriate because race was indeed a factor for the Democrats.
.
…
No it wasn’t. Robert Bork is proof-positive that the Democratic Senate was going to shut down any super-conservative candidate. Race here only mattered to the GWH Bush administration. They didn’t want to be known for taking away a minority spot on the Supreme Court. Obviously there’s a shortage of black conservatives, so they went with an unqualified candidate. It was a political move. An understandable move, but one laced with the irony that Thomas is so anti-affirmative action.
Again, no one was lynched. Did you click on the link I provided in comment #43? That, my friend, is a lynching. A white mob cut off this guy’s ears, testicles, and fingers before being hung and burnt alive. As I mentioned earlier, MM jumped all over someone for using the term “lynching” in regard to Michael Vick. She should have done the same here. Holding a double-standard between black liberals and black conservatives isn’t fair or honest.
Bloggers from the right just crack me up sometimes. You all know in your heart of hearts. if a liberal black person threw out the term “high tech” lynching to describe a professional hardship, you all would be all of over him/her and rightfully so. But when it comes to Justice Thomas he’s given a “free pass” to play the race card. Were Bork, Ginsburg, and Harriet Meyers lynched, or were they just attacked through the often ugly partisan process of judicial nominations?
I see a handful of people on this site who temper their thoughts with some degree of intellectual honesty….something I will always attempt to do. Most on the right and the left, just see the issue, and put their appropriate “cap” on and start spewing partisan nonsense.
Justice Thomas wasn’t lynched…period..not in a high tech way or any other type of esoteric garbage of a spin one wants to put on it.
Please take the time to think, what would my opinion be like if the subject was a conservative or liberal, and try to step out of the box and just be flippin honest. Man…..
Rusty:
Why must those of us – including Justice Thomas – who wish to REFORM affirmative action be tarred with the sobriquet “Anti-affirmative action?”
Most of us realize what AA has become – a backdoor quota program. It has been a never ending source of amusement watching liberals twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny this.
When the federal government says you can sue a company because there is a smaller percentage of minorities working at that company than live in the geographic region where the company is located, I don’t care how your parse it – the government is mandating a quota system.
And since the burden of proof is on the company to prove it is not discriminatory – the only judicial proceeding in America where the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent – the government and the plaintiff usually get their way.
It is an execrable system that needs reforming to reflect realities not to mention making it harder to bring nuisance suits that cost companies hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
No Rusty – not “anti-affirmative action.” We just want to see AA do what it is supposed to do without using quotas to get the job done.
Believe it or not, I am against affirmative action in the workplace. I think there is a certain amount of inevitability with it because people will always want to maintain a diverse workplace or school. But I’m honest with myself. It’s been 40 years. Affirmative Action hasn’t worked.
My point is that Justice Thomas was chosen because of a quota on the Supreme Court. There’s no way around that. Justice Thomas has benefited more from a “backdoor quota” more than perhaps any other American. Considering Thomas’s views, that is a prime example of irony.
In a perfect world, Thomas’s race would never be mentioned. I feel kind of guilty for making AA cracks about him. I feel pretty confident that he’s a bad enough judge that he should be viewed only on his (de)merits. I think he and Justice Kennedy do a great disservice to the bench.
Of course the Democrats in the Senate are going to try to shut down any “super-conservative”. With in reason. The difference is that they took it to a whole new level in attacking Thomas on personal grounds to the degree that they did.
With Bork, the Dems & Liberals were already very familiar with him. Not so with Thomas. So why attack Thomas so vehemently and on such a personal level?
And if it is so much about being a “super conservative”, why did the Scalia nomination sail through so easily?
Even Alito didn’t go anything near what Thomas went through.
All nominations are political moves. Always have been. Always will be. To suggest that Thomas is unique in that regard is silly. Just as silly as finding the Vick usage no different than the Thomas usage. There is a huge difference. One is a good description of events. The other was simply to deflect guilt.
.
Sorry, but Rusty and Buck have this one right. It’s okay for conservatives (true traditional conservatives anyway…i.e., those with a conscience) to be intellectually honest when discussing issues or members of the conservative movement. To do otherwise makes you about the same as those folks over at the Daily Kos who many of you love to hate so much.
maximus, you continue to miss my point. I fully realize that Justice Thomas and the Bush 41 White House made a political decision to avoid discussions regarding his views on Roe v. Wade…smart political decision. However, for Thomas to claim he had never given any thought to Roe is patently ridiculous. As to your sort of silly comparison of my career as a corporate lawyer and Justice Thomas’ career as a government lawyer, appellate judge and Supreme, there’s really not much to say…two completely different tracks in the legal profession. Also, thanks for the news flash that most folks have an unfavorable opinion of lawyers (until they need one, that is). Here I was walking around thinking people have us on the same side of the ledger as Mother Teresa (well, other than Hitch).
Rick, very nice post…I agree with most of what you say regarding affirmative action. You probably know that Justice Thomas has long been bitter on that subject due to the fact that he was admitted to Yale Law on a preferential basis and feels as if his degree is diminished as a result.
Did you interpret that as a comparison to your career? It really wasn’t because it’s like this. At the moment I don’t consider you to be a corporate lawyer, and I’m not saying that to be offensive. But tossing it into a discussion to lend credibility to your claim of incompetence on the part of Thomas just isn’t something I would normally buy into because it’s too convenient.
So those are things that I take with a grain of salt. I’m not interested in what anonymous, third party, court clerks think via anonymous corporate lawyers. They’re not any more credible than my own opinions, even if those clerks do exist.
Fair enough maximus…I take your point, and I’m not offended. Of course, what you think in that regard is of little consequence to me because I really have very little to gain by lying about my credentials on a blog I visit for entertainment purposes and to engage in a bit of sometimes interesting discourse regarding issues of interest to me. The only reason I pulled the bone fides card was because another commenter requested that those posting “critical” remarks about Justice Thomas describe the same. Just that simple. You can take it or leave it or ignore it all together for all I care. Just curious though: on what basis do you feel qualified to comment intelligently on the Court or any of the Supremes?
Oh, and maximus, I’m interested in your credentials and original thoughts. Parroting what you hear on the Limbaugh or Hannity shows doesn’t count. Now if you want to parrot Hugh Hewitt as his proxy, Hugh and I can debate. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion as the saying goes, but not all opinions are created equal, yes?
Dakine, you really don’t expect maximus to answer your question do you??? I’d be highly impressed if he does. I’m not holding my breath.
Rick Moran, I am VERY interested to see your response to an issue that many of the “fair minded” commenters on this site have mentioned. Essentially conservatives such as Ms. Malkin want to have it both ways and accuse liberals of “race hustlers” etc., but then when Justice Thomas uses the phrase “lynching” describing his treatment, he gets a free pass. Is it because he tows the line for the Right in his decisions?
Are you going to take a stance on the question of having it both ways? Are you going to differ in opinion from Ms. Malkin? As a moderator of this forum (I think), I know you have read this thread. So when you respond, please answer the question and do not dodge the question by addressing Rusty’s anti-affirmative action stance.
What is your stance, since we have yet to see Ms. Malkin respond to the question posed in post #16 as to whether he would be considered a “race hustler?
(To quote Ms. Malkin on her current post regarding the Dems and Moveon.org)
“Waiting…”
“Waiting…”
“Waiting…”
Justice Thimas apparently said the 1991 confirmation hearings made him more afraid than the KKK.
What’s the term that’s always used here…”unhinged,” yes?
Unhinged,yes.
hypocritical, completely.
Darknight and Rusty,
You likely won’t hear a honest and intelligent response from the right.
This wasn’t in the playbook.
Rusty has the integrity to condemn a black liberal for throwing out the term lynching loosely, but not the Thomas supporters.
Yeah, uh, Clarence Thomas was “lynched”,
and the whole confirmation process was kind of like “slavery”, and uh the drive from his house to capital hill was like the “middle passage” Yeah it’s pretty ignorant.
Race card playing from the right just isn’t in the playbook, but integrity comes from within. I guess it’s time to move on(no pun intended)
Unfortunately, the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular have been hijacked over the last 15-20 years by authoritarians (read neocons and extreme cultural conservatives). These folks are not interested in facts, evidence, civil discourse of substantive issues, compromise, open government, or pragmatic results. Sadly, they’re primarily interested in consolidation and retention of power and a strict adherence, in an almost religious way (and sometimes in a real religious way), to dogmatic ideology.
When makes it increasingly frustrated for moderate Dems and independents to even consider candidates who are not interested in the uniting of our country, but simply advancing their own agenda and shying away from challenges to their opinion. BOR constantly derides individuals for “hiding under their desks.” This does not always apply to left as seen in this instance.
Well said dakine.
edit: “Which makes it… “