Did anyone see his segment on "60 Minutes" last night (the Vince Young interview had to have drawn more people to the show, right?)? I found him to be an interesting study. Obviously he wrote a new autobiography so the purpose was to sell books, but his life story is an interesting one. I hadn't heard before that he hated his law degree from Yale and felt it was worthless (seems odd coming from a Supreme Court justice). I also had forgotten how inexperienced he was when GHWB put him up for the position.
How many of his opinions have you read? I have read a few. I wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised. You may not agree with his opinions, but calling him an idiot reflects more on you than anything else.
I'm fine with it reflecting on me. In my opinion, he should never have been nominated to the highest court of the land. Add to my opinion that I think he simply wasn't qualified. D&D. Impeach Bush's Dog!!!
What did she have to say? Thomas is certainly not dumb. He definitely was under qualified at the time and since has had a kind of vague public persona (other than being Scalia's dog), but he is not dumb and seems to be an interesting man.
The opinion that I am most familiar with is Thomas' dissent in the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case. While Thomas and Scalia joined in Justice O'Connor's principal dissent, Scalia did not join Thomas' separate dissent. So I think Thomas' clerks get all the credit. Like Deckard, I was underwhelmed by Thomas' nomination to the court. But I am open minded enough to recognize a well-reasoned and well-written opinion when I read one. While I often disagree with them (such as the majority opinion in Kelo), I don't think any of the Supreme's are idiots. The idiots are all down the street.
I think what he was trying to say was that despite his fear of a KKK lynch mob, he was never actually attacked by one. Left-wing zealots on the other hand....... But then, you already knew that.
metaphorically speaking, and if it brought them political gain, yes, they would and did, engage in a "hi-tech lynching."
I don't think Thomas is an idiot in the clinical sense, just the literal sense. D&D. Impeach Barbara Bush!
Yes, we have all heard this sad story of the meanie democrats beating up on the noble Republicans, who retaliated by gang-raping Anita Hill and dumping her body by the side of the road. Those brave christian soldiers bring a tear to my eye. *tears
I forget why, but I was at a friend's house and heard every word of Hill's testimony and the questions live during the day. It almost seems like yesterday and I will never forget Orin Hatch and Arlen Specter. That evening after work, the entire nation heard Thomas' booming and powerful rebuttal. What a sad chapter in American history. Over the years, I've gravitated towards believing Anita Hill. At the time, I was on the fence and would have voted against Thomas because there was enough doubt created. Has any other nominee ever been voted against by the committee, referred to the full Senate anyway and then approved? What a bizarre event. I fully believe to this day had Hill testified during the evening (in front of all America instead of the limited daytime audience), Thomas would have been soundly voted down. But the biggest impression left on the national conscience was Thomas' anger and denial.
I do not like Clarence Thomas at all period. The nomination process was ridiculous enough. And regardless of the actual details of the Anita Hill case, that whole scene became a ridiculous political spectacle. And its kind of ironic because most states have rape shield laws designed to prevent exactly what happened. Even now I still just get pissed off thinking about how horrible that process was. Whether you believe Anita Hill or not, no one can say that the process wasn't exactly conducive to a fair discussion. And even beyond that, the whole process was rushed. After Thurgood Marshall, there was an implicit need apparently to appoint a minority as fast as possible so they ended up picking an under-qualified, controversial figure to replace Marshall. And I've been underwhelmed by the legal basis of much of his writings. He almost invariably cites vague and myopic constitutional justifications that really don't analyze the problem. I'm not a law student but I have taken some law classes at UT and both professors (one of which is pretty conservative) have cited Thomas as examples of what not to do.
Clarence Thomas is a victim of the old fear which continues to haunts black people who would have their own opinion. The fear is this: that if their, blacks, house is divided in any way then white people will be able to put them through unspeakable acts of racism, that their only chance at survival is to stick together. Clarence Thomas was not nearly the first to go through this. It happened to Ralph Ellison as well. On a deeper level, all people have been, at some point, intimidated by the same fear, only with blacks there is much more at stake. It is much more polarizing to be a traitor to your race than it is to be a traitor to your family, or social circle.
