Is blog open for unrestricted comments?…

Well said dakine.

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)

What’s the term that’s always used here…”unhinged,” yes?

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm, dakine said:
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.
Just curious though: on what basis do you feel qualified to comment intelligently on the Court or any of the Supremes?

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?

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am, Buck I said:
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?

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…”

As to your sort of silly comparison of my career as a corporate lawyer and Justice Thomas’ career as a government lawyer

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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.