Ok, Mick, the smoker is all ready to go so I'll take a few moments to ease your mind.

You, and several others have questioned why I believe Justice Thomas to be qualifed for his seat on the U. S. Supreme Court. Let's review: GregF on 1/July/01 states, "the man is no more than a mediocre jurist at best (and here I'M being generous) and is simply not qualifed to sit on the Supreme Court be he right, left or center in his political outlook, without considering the numberous other shortcomings in his intercourse (no pun intended) with women, Blacks, the poor, etc.

GUEST, The Yank on 2 July, 01-he/she invited me to get off my "self-satisfied arse" and read the public record, written in simple language. More on that later.

On July 2, 01, I stated that Justice Thomas was confirmed, sits on the Court, and to say he is not qulaified is a bit ludicrous. GregF loved this one.

On July 1, Greg posts a rather long sarcastic message directed at me, in which he questions my credentials, accuses me of viewing Thomas as the reincarnation of Oliver Wendell Holmes (which of course I never did) and intimates that my opinions are based on "the maunderings of judicial "experts: and "scholars" such as Rush Limbaugh & the admitted liar, David Brock (which also is not true.)

He continues by pointing out that the point at issue is Thomas' credentials and points out that "scholars of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' bent and who have made such a judgement and written or commented on the issue at some length both during the confirmation hearings and since, are predominantly of the opinion the Mr. Thomas is pretty marginal as a jurist." (the point Greg is Thomsas's credentials ...to quote you and by the way, I like to see a list of the conservatives you state made negative remarks about Judge Thomas' qualifications)

Then Greg goes on blah, blah, blah, etc. until he get to the "L" word. "Ludricrious? If you want ludicrous, your contention that 'he's on the court, so he must be qualified'is a real scream." Hold that thought, Greg.

Then on 3 July, o1, SDShad wades in. "Doug, you can't seriously be arguing that making it through the Senate confirmation process equals proof of superiior qualification as a jurist (or whatever the job), can you?" No, SDShad, I'm not. I said he was qualified, at no time did I argue that confirmation is proof of SUPERIOR qualifiction as a jurist. He continues, "And dont' even get me started on the alleged "qualifications" of the also-Senate-confirmed James Watt ... Ok, I won't.

Whistle Stop states on the same day, "I only wish that ALL the folks involved in nominating and confirming Thomas had focused squarely and honestly on his "qualifications" (my quote marks)and ideology, rather than the whole he said/she said fiasco over Anita Hill." You got half your wish, WS, they did focus on his ideology.

Spaw says on July 3, o1, that "I think the Bork hearings represented the same politics exept the other side won. It all got down to, 'I want him versus 'I don't.' Thomas, as WS said and as I had previously stated, WAS BEREFT OF QUALICATIONS (my emphasis) so the "show" was centered elsewhere. Bork had plenty of qualifications and a brilliant mind but it still was reduced to the same thing." What it was reduced to, Spaw, was idealogy. The liberal Senators didn't like Bork's conservative views.

Big Mick wades in today with the statement that "this isn't a liberal or conservative argument." A bit further down in the message he asks me to explain the criteria I used to arrive at my belief.

I'm about to get to that.

I decided to take GUEST Yank's advice and do some research at my friendly nearby library. Specifically, I temporarily borrowed from the Reference section the book, "The Supreme Court A - Z, Second Edition, Kenneth Jost, Editor. It is printed by the "Congressional Quarterly."

The first task was to check the qualifications for serving on the United States Supreme Court. I quote: "There are no constitutional or statutory qualifications at all for serving on the Supreme Court. There is no age limitation, no requirement that justices be native-born citizens, not even a requirement that appointees have a legal background ...although all one hundred and eight members during our history have been lawyers.

Hmmm. It would seem that Justice Thomas is qualified to serve, as I would be, and Spaw, and Kendall, or just about anybody else.

I decided to look a little further to see what experience the current justices have in comparison to Thomas. But an additional trivia point grabbed me. "Not until 1957 was the Supreme Court composed entirely of law school graduates. Before that time many appointees had attended law school without receiving degrees. the last justice never to have attended law school was James F. Byrnes (who later served in Roosevelt's war time Cabinet), who served on the Court from 1941-1942. The son of poor Irish immigrants, Byrnes never even graduated from high school.

All justices have been lawyers, but only sixty-seven HAD JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE before coming to the Court. (my emphasis).

The Current Court: Nine justices in 1998 had been federal circuit judges; two had been state court judges (David Souter had been both). Chief Justice Rhenquist had NO prior judicial experience.

Many justices have had political careers, serving in Congress, as governors or as members of a Cabinet. Two current justices held positions in state government prior to their appointments. Sandra Day O'Connor served six years in the Arizona state Senate; Souter was New Hampshire's Attorney General for two years.

Several justices served in the Executive Branch before appointment: William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, 1969-71 Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, 1974-77 Clarence Thomas, Assistant Secretary of Education for civil rights, 1981-82; Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982-1990. Steven G. Breyer, Assistant Attorney General, 1965-1967.

Ruth Baden Ginsburg was appointed to the U. S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia in 1980, by President Carter. Justice Thomas served on this same Appeals court having been appointed by the current president's father. Two years later, Thomas was nominated by then President Bush to serve on the Supreme Court.

I was a bit curious about Thomas' education and I didn't remember from the hearings.

Justice Thomas grew up in poverty in rural Georgia (USA). He was raised by his grandparents. His early education was in segregated Georgia schools. He worked his way through college and received his law degree from Yale University (not an unknown educational institutiion in the U.S.)

So, assuming you read all of this, if you still want to claim that Justice Thomas is not qualified to serve on the U. S. Supreme Court, you REALLY didn't read this long posting.

IMHO, dear friends who live other than in the United States, here is the reason that I believe so many of my liberal friends feel Justice is not qualified: (Quoting from the aforementioned book on the Supreme Court) "On the Court, Thomas forged an unusually close alliance with fellow conservative, Antonin Scalia; they voted together approximately 90% of the time. Even when in the majority, they sometimes urged a mroe conservative stance than the court adopted. In affirmative action cases, for example, Thomas and Scalia both called for a complete ban on the use of racial preferences.

Thomas also called for overturning precedents expanding Congress's power in interstate commerce and allowing prison inmates to sue over prison conditions. He also strongly backed law enforcement in criminal law issues and wrote a major 1997 decision upholding state laws for confining "Sexual Preditors" in mental institutions.

That my liberal friends is why I think you dont'like Justice Thomas, and that also goes for his compatriot, Scalia. Just my opinion of course (and no, I did not consult with Limbaugh before I wrote my opinion).

One last comment to Kendall: Kendall, if Anita Hill did not want to appear before the committee, why did she inform them that Thomas had sexually harrassed her? The same book I quote from above stated that she brought it to the attention of the committee. What did she expect? They weren't going to expect her to testify? Give me break. DougR