 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Very sorry..
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:37 PM Amos, I hope you and Rick will join me for a wee libation in the Mudcat Pub. The drinks are on me. Rick, I'm a mad smoker! I'll PM you about it. Got a great simple rub to suggest for brisket. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:26 PM DougR: Beautifully composed, marshaled and presented. Obvioously the man meets the legal requirements. The opposition is now invited to articulate the facts on which they base their contention that he shouldn't be there, for moral, ideological, legal, mental or other grounds. Personally, the only issue I watched closely enough to make me feel like disqualifying the Court was their intercession in the State of Florida due process, which turned State's Rights in to a media cartoon and undermined the repute of the whole judiciary...but that's just my opinion. Again, nice job. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Rick Fielding Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:51 PM Jeezuz Doug, I don't want to distract anyone in this discussion, 'cause I'm finding it interesting, but I'd love to know some details about: "Texas style brisket and chicken" and especially your "smoker" You might remember that I come from Montreal where "smoked meat" is a subject for discussion second only to Quebec independence. I mean they are SERIOUS about their smokin'. Is what you produce similar to Pastrami or smoked meat and is it spiced? 'Course you know what I think of politicians in general (and hence their appointees), so I needn't add to an already good thread. You can Pm. me if you'd like. Cheers Rick Sorry for the hi-jack folks.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:23 PM 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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 07:55 PM If someone appoints a plumber, and it turns out that he is not fit for the job, it shouldn't make any difference whether the person who appointed him was a Democrat or a Republican, or Labour or Conservative or Sinn Fein. The plumber's incompetence is the issue.
When push comes to shove, it's the same for judges. You can disagree with a judge and think he is the wrong man for the job, and political affiliation and opinions can come into that. But when it's a question of competence, it's a technical question, like methods of counting votes. There is no room whatsoever for political affiliation to come into those kind of things. If there is a disagreement it should be based wholly on other considerations, in which case it would be inconceivable that it would coincide with political divisions.
Go down that road and you undermine the whole fragile democratic process. Infinitely worse than the kind of trivial symbolic stuff that people sometimes get worked up about such as burning flags and such. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 03 Jul 01 - 05:59 PM That would be great, if politics did not enter into it, but, it does. The problem can be boiled down to just this, We ALL think we know what is best for the country, BUT, we just dont agree on how best to do it. The republicans are not out to destroy the USA, nor are the democrats, however, when a man like Thomas is elevated far higher than his qualifications should take him, then I believe it sets a dangerous precident, and, when the Supreme Court appoints a president, that too is dangerous. Now, thats my belief. Doug sees it from a different angle, and he does not see any problem. So, who is right? I only hope he is right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM It seems any disagreement around anything to do with people involved in politics (you note I did not say any disagreement about politics, which is or should be a very different thing) gets seen as "liberals" and "conservatives" lining up against each other.
I can't see it that way. If something is right, it's right whatever the politics of the individuals concerned, and if its wrong it's wrong regardless of the politics of the people concerned.
When it comes to questions like how high tax levels should be, and whether it is better for public services to be privatised or not, I expect to see honourable people squaring up along political lines.
But when it's about technical things like the mechanics of vote counting, or how you should ensure that the best people get appointed to important jobs, I just cannot see how it is possible that honourable people can line up neatly along party political lines. It is just not worthy. I've added several other words for it that came to mind, but decided to leave them out.
It's a bit as if the two sides in a war put aside the issues they were fighting about and had passionate disputes about how uniforms should be tailored, or what was the best calibre for a rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:08 PM Anita Hill did not want to testify. She was forced to do so. Other witnesses were not allowed to testify, because Joe Biden and other dems made a deal with the republicans. Thomas was appointed for exactly what WS said and it was the same reason that Quayle (Mr. Potato Head) was appointed. To appease the wing nuts. The Supreme Court is poorer by at least one, and that is no place for political lackeys.It is a very dangerous precident. Doug, I'm, not going to attack you, but, I would like to hear a logical statement from you on Thomas' qualifications. If you know something I dont know, let me in on it so I can be better informed than I am now. And, by the way, his popularity with the court is not a qualification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:06 PM Big Mick: I'll be glad to respond to you, but I might not have time for a spell. I'm getting the smoker all cleaned up so that I can serve my kids some Texas style brisket and chicken tomorrow when they come over to help me celebrate one of the US of A's greatest holidays, Independence Day! I will say this though, I do not share your opinion that this is not a conservative versus liberal issue. You, my friend, are a fair-minded man, and unlike many of your compatriots here on the mudcat, show a tolerance for conservatives (me at least). I'll get back to you. Meanhwile, have a great 4th! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Jim the Bart Date: 03 Jul 01 - 12:07 PM Since its beginnings, this country has prided itself on a concept referred to as "rule of law". As I understand it, this means that Americans are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of personal opinion, prejudice and emotion in the public sector. Our laws, though man made, are meant to shield us from those who gain an electoral majority and have an axe or two to grind. It was never a perfect system, and it becomes extremely shaky when the members of the federal judiciary cannot see past their ideological leanings to the spirit of the law itself. And by "the law" I mean not only the writ of the Constitution, but also the interpretation and application of it through the years. That is why the nomination and approval of a judge who's only qualifications are a mediocre mind, a rudimentary knowledge of the law and the proper ideological bent is horrifying. That is why the presence of Justice Thomas on the court, and the absence of Robert Bork, should both be seen for what they are - potentially destructive acts by small-minded men temporarily occupying positions of authority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Big Mick Date: 03 Jul 01 - 11:27 AM But Doug, this isn't a liberal or conservative argument. It is about whether this man is qualified to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land. You know I have great respect for you, but I must ask you to go further with your last comment. You indicate that you believe he is qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. Could you explain the criteria you used to arrive at that belief? That is what I am anxious to hear. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation as to what qualifies him, other than the appointment. I know what Bush the elder would say, but I want to hear from my favorite conservative what he believes qualifies Thomas to be there. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 11:13 AM Chris: I don't believe that I ever compared Judge Thomas' legal qualifications with other members of the court. There are others who, based on education and legal experience, are far more qualified that Justice Thomas I'm sure, but I do think he is qualified. I was listening to the Diane Reames show on NPR yesterday or the day before, and her guests included the Supreme Court reporters for the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and a law professor at George Washington University Law School. They are all keen observers of the Supreme Court. All three expressed opinions that Justice Thomas is consistently underated, that he is well liked and respected by his fellow justices. The law professor said the briefs and opinions written by Justice Thomas are among the most scholarly written by any of the justices. What we are expressing here are opinions. Those opinions are flavored by our own political philosophies. Spaw, you, Chris, Greg, lean toward the liberal side, and nothing I or anyone else could say or write would change your opinons of Judge Thomas. Conversely, nothing any of you say or write will change my opinion. I believe most of you who have been on the Mudcat for some time, and who know me, would agree that I do listen to both "sides of the story." I do not attempt to "convert" anyone to my point of view. I'm not likely to be converted to the liberal point of view. That's just the way it is, folks. Respectfully, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:49 AM McGrath: What's the difference between a mudcat (fish) and a lawyer? One is a slime-sucking bottom-feeder. The other is a fish. In American slang a bottom feeder is an organism that crawls around the bottom of a lake or sea living on detritus and leavings and whatever else drifts down his way -- cf. scumbag, parasite, bloodsucker, no-account, ne'e'r-do-well, slimeball, turd. Not to be confused with ass-kisser, although they may, so to speak, be intersecting sets! Cf. brown-nose, toady, sycophant, ass-lick, foot-kisser, etc. All clear? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:30 AM I think the Bork hearings represented the same politics except 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 qualifications so the "show" was centered elsewhwere. Bork had plenty of quailifications and a brilliant mind but it still was reduced to the same thing. Don't get me wrong......I thought Bork was an ass of the first order and I want to apologize to any asses reading this for the comparison. The thing is, it would have been easier for me to live with a Bork than a Thomas. I didn't agree with Bork, but you damn well knew where he stood and that his background and intellect were of the caliber one might expect in a nominee. We shitcanned Bork because of his strengths and appointed Thomas because of his weakness............so it goes. Neither belongs on the court, but at least Bork could make strong arguments for his positions! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Whistle Stop Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:12 AM There are people of greater and lesser qualifications throughout the government, in all branches and at all levels. Most of us, regardless of our ideology, probably recognize that Clarence Thomas was not nominated because of his stellar legal qualifications. He was nominated because (a) he's black, which was an unstated prerequisite for the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall, and (b) he's conservative, which was something George H.W. Bush (generally viewed as a moderate Republican) had to pay attention to in order to appease the more conservative wing of his own party. In the years since Thomas was confirmed, he has generally served as a second Scalia vote, and has rarely if ever emerged from Scalia's shadow. One might legitimately ask whether a great resume is all it's cracked up to be. Our greatest President (in my opinion) was a one-term Congressman from Illinois; and some of our worst Presidents (in my opinion) possessed much more impressive qualifications. I believe it was Richard Nixon who, after being criticized for nominating a particularly unimpressive individual to sit on the Supreme Court, argued that mediocre people also deserve to be represented (not sure how I feel about that logic, but it seems germane, so I thought I'd mention it). I only wish that ALL of the folks involved in nominating and confirming Thomas had focused squarely and honestly on his qualifications and ideology, rather than the whole he said/she said fiasco over Anita Hill. Then it would have been like the Bork hearings, only without the impressive resume to bolster the nominee's credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM I'm still curious about "bottom feeders"...
I'd have thought after the shenanigans in the wake of the elections, the standard for Supreme Court Justices can't be all that high anyway. Any more than it is for High Court Justices in England, where there have been some very rummy characters indeed.
Now please join in a chorus from Trial by Jury (since an uncalled-for note of irritation has arisen among the posts on this thread:
For he is a Judge, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM I'm still curious about "bottom feeders"...
I'd have thought after the shenanigans in the wake of the elections, the standard for Supreme Court Justices can't be all that high anyway. Any more than it is for High Court Justices in England, where there have been some very rummy characters indeed.
Now please join in a chorus from Trial by Jury (since an uncalled-for note of irritation has arisen among the posts on this thread:
For he is a Judge, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SDShad Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:41 AM Doug, you can't seriously be arguing that making it through the Senate confirmation process equals proof of superior qualifiction as a jurist (or whatever the job), can you? Stacked up against Greg F.'s point, that being that legal scholars, both liberal and conservative (thus removing the issue of ideological bias), have weighed in on the lightness of Thomas's strength as a jurst, which you don't address, and your argument really comes across as water-thin and ideological. No sarcasm intended in saying this, but I really do hope that isn't your only point in support of Thomas. Remove the fact that it's Clarence Thomas, remove the fact that he's an ideological conservative (which, IMHO, is what made him "qualified" for nomination in the first place, that and his skin tone, not his minimal and unimpressive judicial chops), and do you really believe that Senate confirmation=proof of qualification? 'Cause I can tell you, one of our past governors here in South Dakota (and a Democrat, mind you, so you can't claim ideological bias on my part), was Jimmy Carter's ambassador to Singapore. Now the guy was a dunce, and I'm pretty sure didn't even know where Singapore was until staffers pointed it out on a map. But hey, he was confirmed by the Senate, so he must have been well-qualified. And don't even get me started on the alleged "qualifications" of the also-Senate-confirmed James Watt.... Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 03 Jul 01 - 05:15 AM ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union An Uncle Tom is a black person who is considered to have 'sold out' to the oppressive forces within the dominant 'white culture' in the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: JudeL Date: 03 Jul 01 - 04:31 AM Pardon the ignorance but ACLU = ? I presume from the context that the CL stands for civil liberty but can someone please tell me what this acronym actually is? I tried the blue clicky thing but I still didn't find out. And does the insult "an Uncle Tom" mean someone who discriminates against people from their own cultural heritage - & if not what does it mean? Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:47 AM You're really funny, Greg. Best, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:00 PM Doug, ya don't want to play, don't serve the ball, OK? Thanks, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:18 PM So, Greg, he is NOT a Supreme Court Justice? Your sarcasm is wasted on me Greg. You've tried it many time before, and if it give you pleasure, so be it. And, yes, I still think it's luducrous. Certainly nothing you said convinces me otherwise. Your other comments are not, IMO, worthy of comment. Best, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Bill D Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:17 PM Fallacy of Association , or 'transference', I'd think |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM Gee, Doug, one might question your "credentials" for regarding him as the reincarnation of Oliver Wendell Holmes!- especially since your opinions on these matters are ostensibly based on the maunderings of judicial "experts" end "scholars" such as Rush Limbaugh & the admitted liar, David Brock, cited above.
However, regarding Thomas' 'credentials' (which was the point at issue) folks who ARE legal 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 that Mr. Thomas is pretty marginal as a jurist.
His major "qualification", as those plumping his nomination & confirmation freely admitted, was not any legal talent, but his "conservative ideaology" which would help offset the "liberal bias" of the court. If his major boosters were and are willing to accept this, I would think you might do so with better grace.
Just because a Justice does not rule the way you wish them to, does not mean he/she is not qualified.
Ludicrous? If you want ludicrous, your contention that "he's on the court, so he must be qualified" is a real scream. Been too long since I studied logic for me to recall the name for this classic fallacy - perhaps someone will be willing to supply it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 01 - 04:19 PM The book writers were just the bottom feeders.
Linguistic drift. Is a bottom feeder a crab wandering round on the seabed, or an arselicker? It's useful to calibrate insults, and the latter definition is a bit stronger than the former. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 02 Jul 01 - 03:40 PM Guest Yank: Hmmm. Yep, you would know about that wouldn't you? I think McGrath might be on to something. Justice Thomas was confirmed by the United States Senate, and he does sit on the Supreme Court. To say he is not quailfied is a bit ludicrous. If he is not, it is more an indictment of those who confirmed him, thn it is Thomas. Just because a Justice does not rule the way you wish them to, does not mean he/she is not qualified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: marty D Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM Yeah, Clarence Thomas NEVER discussed ANY of the issues that were the sole reasons for his nomination, and I'm the King of Siam! Both Thomas and Hill are/were highly motivated ambitious ladder climbers. Talk about selling your souls! The book writers were just the bottom feeders. marty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 02 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM dOUG, YOU MADE ME LAUGH RIGHT OUT LOUD! Thanks a lot. Spaw, do you read lips? I saw and heard Clarence Thomas during the hearings say that he had never discussed Roe v Wade, with ANYONE. Incredible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:51 AM How come GUEST,The Yank spells "arse" the good old non-American way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:18 AM Tis all out there in print in the public record Dougie, and written in simple language even you may possibly understand- should you take the trouble to get off your self-satisfied arse, pull your thumb out, and read it. Of course, cracking wise is a lot less work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 11:32 PM Gee, Greg, I'm assuming you have the credentials to make such a judgement in Justice Thomas's case. I'm not familiar with your legal background, so would you enlighten me? Thanks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:52 PM Thomas' pre-court history and achievement could be written on the head of a pin... Think you're being overly generous, 'Spaw- there'd be a lot of room left over. But you're certainly correct that this is not simply a "Liberal" Vs. "Conservative" issue- the man is no more than a mediocre jurist at best (and here I'M being generous) and is simply not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court be he right, left or center in his political outlook, without considering the numerous other shortcomings in his intercourse (no pun intended) with women, Blacks, the poor, etc. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Jim Dixon Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:31 PM Proudson's opening salvo sounds like it might have something to do with the article called "Guess Who's Not Coming to Dinner", which appeared in the Jewish World Review, June 12, 1998. Now, I'm not prepared to step in and argue Proudson's point for him, but maybe someone will. Proudson, if you're following this, a good way to start a discussion on a controversial topic is to cite an article, available somewhere on the Internet, that gives the basic facts. If you don't know how to create a link like I did, just give the URL like this: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder061298.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:10 PM Maybe so Doug........especially if it covered his head as well as his knees! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:05 PM I think you'd probably make a pretty good judge, Kendall! All the women would probably swoon over you even more than they probably do now if they saw you in one of those black robes! **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:43 PM The ACLU stands up for the rights of EVERYONE. It's called justice for all. Some time ago, a good friend of mine, a black man, and I had a discussion. I asked him what he thought of Clarence Thomas being put on the high court, and he said, quote, "I'd rather see YOU on that bench." I said, quote, "Thanks a lot" he replied "That was not a compliment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM (Sorry. That's midnight and 4:00 AM, Mudcat time.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:33 PM According to his posting history, Proudson only posts between the hours of midnight and 4:00 AM. So I guess we're just going to have to wait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:19 PM Still waiting Proudson. We're just guessing here of course. If you can explain how Thomas' civil liberties were abused, as a card carrying ACLU member, I'd be happy to discuss it. The ACLU only has one client and that is the Constitution. As to Justice Thomas, he was a poor selection to fill the shoes of Marshall. It was obvious that Marshall would be replaced by an African-American, and no one measured up to Thurgood Marshall. Marshall had been on the court for many years and no one was going to have that kind of experience obviously. However, Marshall's record of achievement on behalf of the Black community and the American people as a whole before becoming a Supreme is the stuff of legend and takes volumes to discuss. Thomas' pre-court history and achievement could be written on the head of a pin, or the top of a Coke can anyway. So Proudson.......What say you regarding the sniveling little toadie and Nabisco cookie? Conservatism enters into it not at all as the ACLU has a long record of working for the Klan and the American Nazi Party. Spaw |
|
Subject: Justice Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM I'd thought it might have been somethig to do with this, which the Guardian (London) had a piece about a few days ago. Here are the first two paragraphs - or click on the link to see the rest.
A rightwing author who made his name undermining the reputation of a woman who accused a supreme court judge of sexual harassment says now that he was lying all along.
David Brock, whose best-selling book represented Anita Hill as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty", says that he did so to defend Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative black judge whose Senate confirmation hearings were among the most rancorous in history.
"I demonised Democratic senators, their staffs and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them," Mr Brock says of his 1993 book, The Real Anita Hill.
Kevin, you had opening quote marks in a link, but not closing ones. Back to blue-clicky school with you. [grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 05:38 PM I guess I should elaborate a bit more for those not familiar with him. He is the sole Black member of our Supreme Court. His hearings for confirmation were quite contentious. One of his former assistants, who is also African-American, Anita Hill, charged him with sexual harrassment during the hearings. She charged that he regularly made sexists remarks and at one point commented that there was a pubic hair on his coca cola can, or something like that. During the hearings he was accused of renting pornographic films at his favorite video store. He was finally confirmed , of course, but the Liberals have been very critical of him as a Justice. He and Justice Scalia are probably the most conservative members of the court, though Chief Justice Reinquist and Sandra Day O'Connor (both former Arizonans by the way he brags) lean toward the conservative philosophy too. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 05:31 PM Yeah. The liberals can't stand him because he is conservative. The majority of African-Americans are Democrats. There are a few, but very few conservatives. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:45 PM Thanks Doug now I think I understand Whats there to discuss, some people like him some hate him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM I think what Proudson may have been referring to is Clarence Thomas was invited to Hawaii to speak to some group (I'm relying on memory here folks and at my age that's risky). The head of the ACLU in Hawaii objected to his coming and referred to him as an Uncle Tom and equated him with Hitler. Proudson probably wanted to know what everyone thought about that. I'm sure you all know what I think about it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:53 PM Kara I searched for ages to find a link and mine was dated 1997, there is so much on Clarence Thomas on the web that without something else to go on.... Gary I knew the other thread was no on exactly the same tack but I was hoping DougR could shed some light if Proudson posted to that thread Susan, Proudson was doing just fine on another couple of thread so I am not sure why he didn't explain himself on this one. Looks like he took offence for not getting any quick replies, mudcat is a 24 hour thing some of us are in bed while others are waiting for a hot debate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Kara Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:30 PM Click here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:25 PM Yes, it is easy to get provocative when we feel "called out"... but then that's what trolling seeks, and don't we all forget not to reward it? *G* I wasn't talking specifically to you, Gary, either, I was talking to us all, including myself. *G* Actually I thought your post did a good job of conveying how someone's comments can come across when mutual understanding is not yet present, and how people are likely to react. And if Proudson's desire IS to stir up upset (as opposed to discussing in order to advance anyone's understanding), then your very articulate post will serve well to give him a heads-up about how it is likely to be received. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Kara Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:22 PM I have forgotten how to do a blue click thing But here is an article on Clarence Thomas http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Gary T Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:12 PM Good point, Susan. I did not intend to be rude. I did intend to be provocative, which I felt was called for after four posts that said nothing but appeared to me to be rather condescending. |